Who's Who Worldwide Registry
20-plus million dollars per year to zero in five seconds flat

The next installment of this fascinating saga (WWW Trial Transcript Jan29) continues beneath the following paragraphs.

Never once in American history has a company generating millions of dollars per year -- year after year -- been closed in a single day. Never. Until 74,000 members of WWW Executive Club had the door slammed by the U.S. Government.

Publisher's Clearinghouse and Family Publishers and so many other similar companies pay tens of millions in fines for directly deceiving millions of us. Can anyone deny the enormity of impact on sales when Ed McMahon and Dick Clark enthusiastically, nationally promoted magazine sweepstakes scams for years and years? Victims who sold their belongings to fly to Prize Headquarters, people who were falsely told that they were millionaires only to find others just like themselves. Several millions of Americans duped into phony sweepstake scams and schemes that netted enormous profits?

  Although Publisher's Clearinghouse subscriptions were paid in full,  
   neither Dick Clark nor Ed McMahon have been arrested, have they?   

Has even one actual human being from these companies ever been arrested?

When the US Government disapproves of a company's practice,
they usually resolve it informally, with at least a warning or three.

With the apparently too-powerful WWW Executive Club, the US Government waited several years...
and then shuttered the WWW Exec Club with a 5-minute execution. Never once a hint of disapprobation... until the kill.

There are now hundreds of fraudulent companies negotiating with the U.S. Government ---never losing a day of business.
Yet WWW Executive Club, after six years of obviously top-notch service to 72,000 American role models of excellence, was closed in a single day, with a federal raid; with conscientious, professional innocents led out in handcuffs and humiliation. Is it possible to consistently deceive 72,000 of the sharpest men and women in America? the CEO's, Chairmen of the Boards, Exec V.P.'s in 800 of America's largest 1000 corporations? 72,000 of America's best and brightest? From Sumner Redstone and Georgette Mosbacher, both of whom were profiled nationally in the WWW Executive Club Magazine (the one with full-page ads from Izod, Cadillac, Seagram's, all of whom had important Republican men and women in the WWW Exec Club, to thousands and thousands and thousands of additional corporate and institutional decision makers? Not in this life.

trial page 1951

Dirty Trials In American History


Court Reporter: Owen M. Wicker, RPR
20 United States District Court
Two Uniondale Avenue
21 Uniondale, New York 11553
(516) 292-6963
23 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
produced by Computer-Assisted Transcript.


1 (Case called.)
2 THE COURT: Good morning.
3 Where is the witness?
4 (Jury enters.)
5 THE COURT: Good morning, members of the jury.
6 Please be seated.
7 Again, I want to thank you very much for your
8 diligence and punctuality. I'm sorry I kept you waiting.
9 I had two other matters on this morning, which I'm still
10 discussing with the lawyers and that is the reason for the
11 delay.
12 You may proceed.

13 A N D R E W R O S E N B L A T T , having been
14 previously sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was examined
15 and testified as follows:
16 Mr. Rosenblatt, you are still under oath. Do you
17 understand that?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
20 BY MR. WHITE: (Continued.)
21 Q When we broke yesterday we were discussing the loan
22 account for Who's Who Worldwide for Mr. Gordon for the
23 year 1991. Do you recall that?
24 A Yes, I do.
25 Q And we were looking at Exhibit 655 which was the


1 Who's Who general ledger for that period. Do you remember
2 that?
3 A I don't remember the exhibit number, but yes.
4 Q And that only went to July of 1991; is that correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q Now, let me show you Exhibit 1004-A.
7 Have you prepared an analysis of the taxable
8 income --
9 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: I didn't hear the question.
11 MR. TRABULUS: I'm sorry.
13 Q Have you prepared an analysis of the taxable income
14 to Mr. Gordon for the years 1991 through 1994?
15 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: On what grounds?
17 MR. TRABULUS: On the grounds it calls for
18 testimony relating to a legal conclusion, relating what
19 the income is and not taxable.
20 THE COURT: That's not necessarily a legal
21 conclusion. While it's true, this witness as an expert
22 cannot give legal conclusions most of the time. That's a
23 very interesting issue. Where you have ultimate
24 conclusions and legal conclusions are two different
25 things. But with respect to what is taxable from an IRS


1 point of view, he certainly can testify as to that.
2 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, I would like to
3 approach with a further discussion because I believe in
4 this particular instance you should not.
5 THE COURT: All right. Come up.
6 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, maybe I can move things
7 along. I don't want to move the exhibit, I want the
8 witness to refer to it for the purposes of its
9 calculations, not whether or not it is taxable income but
10 the numbers as it relates to companies and years.
11 MR. TRABULUS: Well, the jury already heard the
12 answer or having heard the question, it will be clear to
13 them that any testimony that he gives with regard to those
14 numbers is going to be interpreted that way and I think
15 the issue I'm bringing up at this point will recur

16 throughout the testimony of this witness. I think we
17 ought to address it at this point.
18 THE COURT: Come up.
19 (Side bar.)
20 THE COURT: Yes.
21 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, with regard to the
22 Federal Rules of Evidence not changing the prior law that
23 a witness cannot give a legal conclusion, I would cite
24 U.S. v. Scop, 846 F.2d at 135. It was a subsequent
25 opinion but it didn't change the reasoning of that.


1 THE COURT: What does that say?
2 MR. TRABULUS: Basically the old rule that an
3 expert cannot give a legal conclusion still applies.
4 THE COURT: Is that a tax case?
5 MR. TRABULUS: That one was a securities and mail
6 fraud case.
7 THE COURT: Well, that was apparently prior to
8 1994. Certainly --
9 MR. TRABULUS: It was '88.
10 THE COURT: There were a couple of changes since
11 then that have refined that.
12 MR. TRABULUS: I know that. Let me get to the
13 particular reason that Scop would govern.
14 Based upon the government's disclosure as to the
15 basis of the expert's opinion, he testified that the basis
16 for the inclusion of the loans as income was based on the
17 lack of good faith intent to repay, among other things.
18 Now, the lack of good faith intent to repay, as I
19 understand the case law, is indeed the sine qua non
20 whether or not a loan is a loan or is to be treated as
21 income. But intent and good faith are issues of mental
22 state and Rule 704(b) would preclude testimony concerning
23 that. So what he has done is couched in terms of
24 testimony as to whether income is taxable or not an
25 opinion as to whether or not there was good faith intent


1 to repay a loan at the time it was made.
2 I would submit it was not admissible under Scop
3 and under 704(b).
4 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I would join in Mr. Trabulus'
5 application.
6 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. White.
7 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, Rule 704(b) prohibits an
8 expert offering testimony on the defendant's mental state
9 to commit the offense that he's charged with. That's
10 quite different than what Mr. Rosenblatt will testify
11 about. If that were the test that you can't say anything
12 at all about intent, then -- I'm sorry, if the test where
13 you could never talk about the law, legal conclusions no
14 expert could testify. Every determination of taxable
15 income involves applying the tax code and the regulations
16 to the facts and number at issue. Scop, that case is
17 entirely different. That was a securities fraud case
18 whether the government put on an expert who said that
19 these acts that the defendants on trial did, in his
20 opinion, constituted a scheme to commit securities fraud.
21 That is entirely different than this.
22 THE COURT: What is this expert going to say? He
23 will say that assuming these matters are not loans, they
24 would be taxable income?
25 MR. WHITE: Correct. And the test --


1 THE COURT: What's wrong with that? He's not
2 saying -- he's not getting into the intent of the
3 defendant. He's saying that assuming that they were not
4 loans they would be taxable income and isn't that what you
5 are saying?
6 MR. WHITE: Well, yes and no, Your Honor. The
7 tests as I understand it under the tax code and
8 regulations in terms of deciding whether something is
9 income or loans, involves whether there was the intent to
10 repay the loans at the time they were taken out.
11 Therefore -- and there's a series of factors in the cases
12 about specific concrete factors that Agent Rosenblatt will
13 apply to determine whether or not these were in fact loans
14 or whether they should be considered income. That is
15 entirely different then the mental state required for
16 conviction. He will not testify that Mr. Gordon willfully
17 conspire with Mr. Reffsin, he will not testify that he
18 submitted false tax returns, his determination is not at
19 all inconsistent with an acquittal. He could say look
20 under IRS regulations and cases this is income, but they
21 could still say, which they apparently will say,
22 Mr. Gordon didn't know that, it was an honest mistake, a
23 lack of evil intent.
24 THE COURT: Wait a minute. What will he say?
25 Tell me.


1 MR. WHITE: He's going to say -- well, there's
2 two parts to it. With respect to the loans, he will say
3 his opinion is that they were not bonafide loans and they
4 therefore should be considered income.
5 THE COURT: And give the factors for that.
6 MR. WHITE: And among those reasons are the
7 failure -- the lack of any notes or written documentation,
8 the failure to repay any significant portion of the debt
9 and a series of other factors. Those are the factors that
10 are identified in the cases.
11 MR. TRABULUS: May I be heard further?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MR. TRABULUS: The testimony supposedly will be
14 -- this is a disclosure I was given. With the Court's
15 permission I would like to read from the letter that
16 Mr. White wrote to me in connection with discovery here
17 "as set forth in the government's October 28, 1997 letter
18 to Mr. Carman," who of course was my predecessor,
19 "Mr. Rosenblatt's opinion is based on the lack of any
20 pattern of legitimate repayments of these loans.
21 "Most or all of such payments were not bonafide
22 in that the funds used to make such repayments were simply
23 obtained from the same corporations as to whom repayment
24 was made."
25 Now, bonafide is simply Latin for good faith and


1 there is a good faith defense in this case and under the
2 case law good faith is a complete defense. And that
3 relates to the mental state of the defendant and he's
4 attempting to negate it through the testimony of an expert
5 and I believe that is in violation of 404(b).
6 However, he dresses up the testimony concerning
7 it was taxable or not, it negates the good faith as
8 opposed to income. We are not talking about the situation
9 where the witness will testify as to monies that were not
10 reported but simply the characterization of them. As to
11 good faith, I think 704(b) includes it.
12 MR. WHITE: There's not been a tax case invented,
13 yet when an agent testifies yes, this constitutes
14 income --
15 THE COURT: Well, one of the most interesting
16 cases on expert testimony is United States v. Duncan, 42
17 F.3d 97, (2d Cir. 1994). It was an excellent discussion
18 of expert testimony. It happened to be not a tax case, it
19 was a conspiracy bank fraud and making corrupt payments to
20 public officials. But in this it goes -- the basic rules
21 of expert testimony in a criminal case "expert testimony
22 may be admissible if it is helpful to the trier of fact.
23 That's the starting point. Expert witnesses are often
24 uniquely qualified in guiding the trier of fact through a
25 complicated morass of obscure terms and concepts, because


1 of their specialized knowledge there testimony can be
2 extremely valuable and probative."
3 Couldn't be more applicable to this case.
4 "However, expert testimony is not permitted to
5 usurp either the role of the trial judge in instructing
6 the jury as to the applicable law or the role of the jury
7 in applying that law to the facts before it. When an
8 expert undertakes to tell the jury what result to reach,
9 that does not aid the jury in making the decision but
10 rather attempts to substitute the expert's judgment for
11 the jury.
12 When this occurs, the expert acts outside of his
13 limited role of providing the groundwork in the form of an
14 opinion to enable the jury to make its own informed
15 determination. In evaluating the admissibility of expert
16 testimony the Court requires the exclusion of testimony
17 which states a legal conclusion."
18 Then they go into certain things involving tax
19 cases.
20 "Appellant takes exception to a number of
21 questions which the government was permitted to ask the
22 agent concerning the proper function of the tax system and
23 the importance of filing tax returns accurately. These
24 questions, however, did not ask the witness to express
25 legal conclusions but --" this is key to this case "but


1 only to explain sophisticated aspects of a regulatory
2 system for which the witness had expertise."
3 Now, I'm departing from the text, that's exactly
4 what this will do. We've generally permitted the
5 elicitation of testimony from expert witnesses that shed
6 light not within the activity of the common knowledge of
7 the average juror.
8 In this particular case there was a defense that
9 since taxes were paid on the property, the government did
10 not lose anything by inaccurate tax filings and the Court
11 of Appeals held it was proper for the tax expert to
12 explain why this is not good, although the taxes were
13 paid.
14 MR. WALLENSTEIN: That's not this case.
15 THE COURT: I know it's not this case, but it
16 provides guidance for the Court, a lot of guidance.
17 Agent Mulligan testified based on his own
18 investigation of the facts and review of the records. The
19 testimony he presented did not rely on the credibility of
20 other witnesses.
21 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Your Honor, doesn't an
22 explanation of the legal explanations of the tax code
23 differ from an expert witness attempting to assert the
24 defendant's intent?
25 MR. TRABULUS: And here the legal conclusion is


1 premised upon a finding of lack of good faith which is the
2 heart of the jury's province.
3 THE COURT: No, in this case one of the issues
4 for the jury will be whether these were bonafide loans or
5 whether these were paid for personal expenses which should
6 have been reported as income. That's one of the issues,
7 correct?
9 THE COURT: It's not?
10 MR. TRABULUS: No, there's no dispute most of
11 them were paid for personal expenses.
12 You can have a loan made for personal expense,
13 the issue is whether they were bonafide loans and the
14 issue as to whether the loans were truly loans which is
15 also separate from the issue of defendant's good faith.
16 The issue whether they were truly loans and properly
17 characterized as loans depends upon whether at the time
18 the loans were disbursed there was good faith intent to
19 repay the loans. That's the case law. That seems to be
20 what the case law uniformly says. There were many civil
21 cases, tax court cases that addressed the factors. I know
22 of no criminal case that ever addressed this.
23 THE COURT: First of all, I agree with you, good
24 faith is a good defense in all of these tax cases and I
25 will charge the jury the government has a burden of proof

To continue this fascinating testimony and undercurrents of the power game,
here is a full version of the Jan 29 transcript here




  The List     Transcript     USA's Best     Managing Directors     Dirty Jury?     Politics   
Meanwhile, you can feed people NOW with a free click
        Shortcuts Way For Life Help TheHungerSite Button

  Keep our heroes alive by  LIVING,   DOING  more!    Remember 911day.  
  Keep our heroes alive by  LIVING,   DOING  more!    Remember 911day.  

This site is concerned with The Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club, and the double scandal 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 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.       Remind them of Thomas FX Dunn, Worst Counselor Of A Generation.

The Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club
How Thomas FX Dunn proved himself the Worst Counselor Of A Generation

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