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

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

8433
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 MICHAELSON, : and MARTIN
9 REFFSIN, :
TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
10 Defendants. :March 19, 1998
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:30 o'clock a.m.

12

13 BEFORE:

14 HONORABLE ARTHUR D. SPATT, U.S.D.J.

15

16 APPEARANCES:
17 For the Government: ZACHARY W. CARTER United States Attorney

18 One Pierrepont Plaza Brooklyn, New York 11201
19 By: RONALD G. WHITE
CECIL SCOTT
20 Assistant U.S. Attorneys

21 For the Defendants: NOR MAN TRABULUS, ESQ.
22 For Bruce W. Gordon
170 Old Country Road, Suite 600
23 Mineola, New York 11501

24 EDWARD P. JENKS, ESQ.
For Who's Who, Sterling
25 332 Willis Avenue
Mineola, New York 11501


OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8434



1
GARY SCHOER, ESQ.
2 For Tara Garboski
6800 Jericho Turnpike
3 Syosset, New York 11791

4 ALAN M. NELSON, ESQ.
For Oral Frank Osman
5 3000 Marcus Avenue
Lake Success, New York 11042
6
WINSTON LEE, ESQ.
7 For Laura Weitz
319 Broadway
8 New York, New York 10007

9 MARTIN GEDULDIG, ESQ.
For Annette Haley
10 400 South Oyster Bay Road
Hicksville, New York 11801
11
JAMES C. NEVILLE, ESQ.
12 For Scott Michaelson
225 Broadway
13 New York, New York 10007

14 THOMAS F.X. DUNN,
For Mr Shortcut,
15 150 Nassau Street
New York, New York 10038
16
JOHN S. WALLENSTEIN, ESQ.
17 For Mart in Reffsin 215 Hilton Avenue
18 Hempstead, New York 11551

19
Court Reporter: Owen M. Wicker, RPR
20 United States District Court
Two Uniondale Avenue
21 Uniondale, New York 11553
(516) 292-6963
22

23 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
produced by computer-assisted transcription.
24

25 (Case called.)



OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8435



1 THE COURT: Where is Ms. Haley?

2 MR. GEDULDIG: I don't know, Judge. I can't

3 answer that question. I don't know, Judge. I know she

4 sometimes has difficulty when the weather is bad.

5 MR. SCHOER: Judge, with respect to Ms. Garboski

6 --

7 THE COURT: I can't hear you.

8 MR. SCHOER: I'm sorry.

9 With respect to Ms. Garboski, she called the

10 Court and I received a message from your courtroom deputy

11 to call her back and I did. She is most concerned that he

12 will not be mad at her.

13 THE COURT: Me mad at people that are late? How

14 could you ever get that impression, Mr. Schoer? If I've

15 given anybody that view, they are absolutely correct, but

16 I'm not going to be mad at her, of course not. She said

17 her car will not start.

18 MR. SCHOER: Her battery -- she indicated that

19 she has been waiting for 45 minutes for a cab to show up

20 and a half-hour for a mechanic and whichever one comes

21 first she will avail herself up.

22 THE COURT: Tell her I'm not in the least bit

23 angry.

24 MR. SCHOER: She told me that she doesn't want to

25 hold up the trial and she would waive her appearance until



OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8436



1 she gets here.

2 THE COURT: And you believe she understands that

3 she has a right to be here, that she has a right to hold

4 up everything until she gets here.

5 MR. SCHOER: Yes, she has heard Your Honor's

6 instructions throughout the trial. I'm competent that she

7 knows what this is all about.

8 THE COURT: We have another missing defendant.

9 MR. GEDULDIG: I spoke with Ms. Haley the last

10 time she had a problem getting here and she indicated if

11 she had a problem again and she would be hopeful it would

12 not, but apparently it has. As Ms. Garboski, she is

13 prepared to state to the Court that she will waive the

14 trial.

15 THE COURT: I would hesitate to do that except to

16 discuss certain questions of admissibility of evidence

17 which I would like to discuss. Do you think she would

18 waive her appearance during that period?

19 MR. GEDULDIG: I do.

20 THE COURT: It actually happens to do with the

21 defendant Gordon. Do you understand that that would have

22 to do with certain admissibility of evidence, Mr. Schoer?

23 MR. SCHOER: That's fine.

24 THE COURT: Then please be seated.

25 I am concerned about, which I was concerned right



OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8437



1 from the beginning of the case, about the interplay of the

2 Gordon civil judgment and in a moment of, I suppose, I

3 would not say weakness, that would be awful for me to say

4 that -- by the way, I would like to have Ms. Barnes

5 removed from the courtroom during this discussion.

6 (Ms. Barnes exits the courtroom.)

7 THE COURT: My first inclination when the

8 government wanted to introduce the Gordon, rather, the

9 Who's Who Worldwide Reed Elsevier judgment against Who's

10 Who Worldwide was no. I felt it was not relevant, and

11 even if it was the probative value was far outweighed by a

12 jury, no matter what my curative charge was, telling them

13 that the burden of proof was different, that it had to

14 deal with a copyright infringement case, the issues

15 weren't the same and yet they'll hear it. This concerned

16 me very greatly. I thought that this kind of evidence

17 would be classic 403, confuse the issues -- here's Ms.

18 Haley -- good afternoon -- I mean, good morning, Ms.

19 Haley.

20 DEFENDANT HALEY: I'm sorry.

21 THE COURT: And so I precluded it.

22 As I said under 403, I thought it was classic

23 unfair prejudice to expect a jury to understand the

24 difference in the burden of proof, the difference in the

25 type of case, all they would know is that a federal judge



OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8438



1 told Who's Who Worldwide and Gordon not to do this.

2 I was also concerned with the time element, this

3 was far late in the name. The judgment was when, in

4 1994?

5 MR. TRABULUS: March 1994, Your Honor. I don't

6 have the exact date.

7 THE COURT: The company closed in March of 1995

8 and they went into bankruptcy shortly thereafter. Much of

9 the evidence of the alleged criminal actions were before

10 that time. So all in all I expressed the view very

11 clearly at that time that I was going to exclude it. And

12 the rule reads and it seems to be classic in this type of

13 evidence, although there are cases and I know there are

14 cases in which they allowed it for specific issues. Every

15 time they allow it they say it is not error or it is not

16 an abuse of discretion. They sort of feathered it all the

17 time. They said we don't like it really, but okay, we'll

18 let it get by because it covered a specific issue in the

19 case.

20 The rule says, although irrelevant, evidence may

21 be excluded if it's probative value is substantially

22 outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of

23 the issues or misleading the jury or by considerations of

24 undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of

25 cumulative evidence. If there ever were evidence that fit



OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
8439



1 within 403, my view was originally, and I excluded it,

2 then we would get the Sandra Barnes episode and here's

3 where my moment of weakness occurred.

4 Mr. White and Ms. Scott are very persuasive.

5 Ms. Scott comes up with all kinds of cases all the time

6 and Mr. White uses them to great advantage and being the

7 very good lawyer that he is. And so when I said I would

8 allow the Barnes testimony on the question of good faith

9 or evidence of fraudulent intent or whether it was just

10 doing business as usual, and this case, understand this is

11 a close case, very close case. It's a close case whether

12 these defendants went over the line. I'm going to let it

13 go to the jury, but it's a close case, very close.

14 Now, when I decided I would allow the Barnes

15 testimony in if there was evidence of custom and usage and

16 we found in the in camera testimony that not only Marquis,

17 and I'll call them that notwithstanding what they want to

18 be called because I don't know how to pronounce the other

19 one, Marquis Who's Who used lists, I assume they are

20 mailing lists, they didn't call them that, but they are

21 association lists, Dun & Bradstreet lists. While the

22 witness testified that she didn't know about custom and

23 usage no doubt they were a major player and they put them

24 in a brochure which they mailed out to potential

25 customers. My goodness, that's why I allowed 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.  

Built by Text2Html

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 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 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 working hard to prove himself the Dumbest Lawyer In The Nation

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