23
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by computer-assisted transcription. 24 25
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2502
1 (Case called.)
2 THE COURT: All right. Bring in the jury.
3 (Jury enters.)
4 THE COURT: Good morning, members of the jury.
5 Please be seated.
6 It is indeed gratifying that in one of the
7 largest jury selection districts in the United States, the
8 Eastern District of New York which as I told you several
9 times stretches from the New Jersey border of Staten
10 Island to Montauk Point, everybody is here earlier than on
11 time. Congratulations to yo
u.
12 You may proceed.
13 MS. SCOTT: The government calls Wendi Springer.
14 W E N D I S P R I N G E R , having been first duly
15 sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was examined and
16 testified as follows:
17 THE WITNESS: Wendi Springer, S-P-R-I-N-G-E-R
18 DIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MS. SCOTT:
20 Q Could you tell us where you live, Ms. Springer?
21 A I live in Bohemia.
22 Q And how old are you?
23 A 30. 24 Q What do you do for a living now? 25 A I work for a large media company.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2503 Springer-direct/Scott
1 Q How long have you been doing that?
2 A A year and four months.
3 Q Was there a time when you worked at a company called
4 Who's Who Worldwide Registry, Incorporated?
5 A Yes.
6 Q When did you begin working there?
7 A I believe it was the f
irst week in January of '91.
8 Q And how long did you work there?
9 A Up until the day that the company was closed down.
10 Q When was that?
11 A Which was March 30th or 31st of '95.
12 Q So you worked there approximately four years?
13 A A little over four.
14 Q Now, what was your position when you started there in
15 1991?
16 A Receptionist and data entry.
17 Q And where was your office located at that time?
18 Where was the Who's Who Worldwide office located?
19 A 99 Seaview Boulevard.
20 Q Which town?
21 A In Port Washington.
22 Q Did your position change over the four years you were
23 there? 24 A Yes. 25 Q When did it change first?
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2504 Springer-direct/Scott
1 A Uhm, I would say a little after maybe seven months or
2 so.
3 Q And how did
your job change at that time?
4 A When the company expanded my title of
5 receptionist/data entry was to be editorial assistant.
6 Q Where was the office located at the time when your
7 job changed?
8 A I believe we were in the process of moving and like I
9 said seven or eight months later it was at the Lake
10 Success office.
11 Q What were your responsibilities as an editorial
12 assistant?
13 A I was proofing the applicants, their information they
14 had sent in by mail or fax.
15 Q When you refer to "applicant," who do you mean?
16 A Potential customers.
17 Q Do you mean people who had applied for membership?
18 A Yes.
19 Q When memberships were sold to these companies.
20 MR. GEDULDIG: Objection to the form of the
21 question, Judge.
22 THE COURT: I didn't hear the question yet.
23 BY MS. SCOTT: 24 Q When memberships
were sold to customers, how was the 25 contact initially made?
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2505 Springer-direct/Scott
1 MR. GEDULDIG: Now I object, Judge.
2 THE COURT: Are you objecting to the form? Why?
3 MR. GEDULDIG: It contains a fact not in
4 evidence. She said something was sold. No evidence has
5 there been that was sold, so she is testifying for the
6 witness.
7 MR. SCHOER: I join in the objection, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Did people become members of Who's
9 Who?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 THE COURT: How did they become members?
12 THE WITNESS: Through a sale.
13 THE COURT: Did they have to pay for it?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 THE COURT: Overruled. You may proceed.
16 BY MS. SCOTT:
17 Q How did these people who applied for membership first
18 contact through the company?
1
9 A Through phone -- through a mailing house they would,
20 I would assume, get a list.
21 MR. GEDULDIG: Objection to what she assumes.
22 THE COURT: When you assume --
23 THE WITNESS: Let me rephrase that. When a 24 mailing list was from a place called, I believe Antun's, 25 that is a company that provided a mailing list.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2506 Springer-direct/Scott
1 THE COURT: Antun's?
2 THE WITNESS: Antun's.
3 THE COURT: How do you spell that? A-N-T-O-N or
4 U-N?
5 THE WITNESS: U-N, I believe. I'm not --
6 BY MS. SCOTT:
7 Q So in other words, letters were sent to these
8 companies?
9 A Letters were sent to the customers.
10 MR. JENKS: Objection.
11 THE COURT: Please rise, Mr. Jenks.
12 MR. JENKS: I'm sorry, objection.
13 THE COURT: Sustained as to form. Please strike
14 out the answer.
15 BY MS. SCOTT:
16 Q How did the company contact the people they were
17 attempting to sell these memberships to?
18 A By phone. From a lead card that was submitted
19 through the mail or by fax.
20 Q Now, what is a lead card?
21 A It's a card approximately (indicating) -- I don't
22 know the dimensions. It would have the potential
23 customer's name, occupation, company name, city, state, 24 address, industry, organization, expertise. 25 Q Who had filled out the information on the lead card?
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2507 Springer-direct/Scott
1 A The potential customer.
2 Q I'm showing you Government's Exhibit 9-D for
3 Identification.
4 What is that document?
5 A This is a lead card.
6 Q And how was it that the potential customers obtained
7 those lead cards and filled
them out?
8 A It was through a mailing house.
9 Q How did each customer obtain each particular lead
10 card?
11 THE COURT: You have to go a little slower. I'm
12 having trouble keeping up.
13 Now, what number is this for Identification?
14 MS. SCOTT: 9-D for Identification.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 BY MS. SCOTT:
17 Q How did each customer obtain each of those lead
18 cards?
19 A It was sent with a letter, a nomination letter and
20 this card was included in the information that was sent to
21 -- or I could say solicitation mail that was sent to
22 them.
23 Q Did you see these solicitation letters sent out to 24 potential customers? 25 A Yes.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2508 Springer-direct/Scott
1 Q Under what circumstances did you see these letters?
2 A When they came back as, y
ou know, deceased, you know,
3 certain things like that. People would say the person has
4 been dead for 20 years, please do not, you know, send any
5 more correspondence, take us off your mailing list,
6 etcetera, etcetera.
7 Q What would you do with these letters that you would
8 see?
9 A They would be tossed outside the facility.
10 Q What were you --
11 THE COURT: Apparently it is getting
12 contentious. It's reaching epidemic proportions. I
13 cannot keep up with you. You will have to slow down, Ms.
14 Scott. BY MS. SCOTT:
15 Q Under what circumstances would you see these letters
16 that came into the company?
17 A If I was asked to sort the mail, if an overabundance
18 of it came in, I was asked at certain times to separate
19 the cards, separate, you know, separate what they called
20 NG, which were the nixies.
21 THE COURT: N-I-X-I-E
-S?
22 THE WITNESS: I believe so. That's what
23 terminology was used. They were called nixies. 24 BY MS. SCOTT: 25 Q Now, I'm showing you Government's Exhibit 60-H for
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2509 Springer-voir dire/Jenks
1 Identification.
2 Can you tell us what that document is?
3 A This is the solicitation letter that was sent.
4 Q How do you recognize that?
5 A I saw it three, four times a week.
6 MS. SCOTT: I offer Government's Exhibit 60-H.
7 THE COURT: Any objection?
8 MR. JENKS: I would like a voir dire, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Go ahead.
10 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. JENKS:
12 Q Ms. Springer, I would ask you to take a look at
13 60-H.
14 Did you specifically see this letter?
15 A This one? Kathy Nielsen.
16 Q Yes.
17 A I saw -- I saw --
18 Q N
o, I'm asking you --
19 A Did I particularly see the one addressed to?
20 Q Did you see the one addressed to who?
21 A Reid Rotatori.
Didn't Abbott and Costello have a routine that sounded like this?
To continue this farcical journey into the perversions of justice in this, one of the Trials To Be Embarrased About,
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 To Be Embarrased About and all the many months of media silence 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 most corrupted federal trials in our time.
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.
Trials To Be Embarrased About - The Who's Who Tragedy
This site is concerned with the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy, and the double scandal of government and judical corruption in one of the most corrupted federal trials and all the many months of media silence 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 most corrupted federal trials.
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 Who's Who Tragedy How Thomas FX Dunn demonstrated himself to be the Scofulous Lawyer Of All Most Corrupted Federal Trials
Dirtiest Trials of the Most Recent Century - Justice Has Gone South
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.
Most Corrupted Federal Trials Worst attorneys in America Thomas FX Dunn
Trials To Be Embarrased About - Miscarriages of Justice
How rare it is to find a case that offers literally dozens of serious justifications for reversal of conviction. The Who's Who case was 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 richest and most powerful publisher in over a hundred countries around the world,
accurately described as one of the most corrupt corporations operating operating on the planet today,
undermined the foundations of American justice in the Who's Who Worldwide case with cash and more.
Examine a trial where less than twenty percent of the proceedings had ANY connection to defendants
That alone has required a separation of trials. In this case, NT 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 hundreds of the most boring hours, all discussion was about Gordon and his actions.
Prosecution witness after prosecution witness exculpated the sales defendants, but,
this same judge who had previously dismissed the case after months of study,
who may have been constitutionally unable to resist pressure from above,
was in fact pressured, and demonstrated a caving in to that pressure.
This pressure came from federal court of appeals above him,
Remember that Reed Elsevier is the most powerful force
in the American arena of jurisprudence today.
This miscarriage of justice can be fixed by granting a new trial
or a Presidential Pardon. Please call 202-456-1414 to lift your voice.
