Most Corrupted Federal Trials   - The Who's Who Tragedy

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

4828

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. :February 19, 1998
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:35 o'clock a.m.

12 BEFORE:

13 HONORABLE ARTHUR D. SPATT, U.S.D.J. and a jury
14 APPEARANCES:
15 For the Government: ZACHARY W. CARTER
16 United States Attorney One Pierrepont Plaza
17 Brooklyn, New York 11201
By: RONALD G. WHITE, ESQ.
18 CECIL SCOTT, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
19 For the Defendants: NORM AN TRABULUS, ESQ.
20 For Bruce W. Gordon
170 Old Country Road, Suite 600
21 Mineola, New York 11501

22 EDWARD P. JENKS, ESQ.
For Who's Who Worldwide
23 Registry, Inc. and
Sterling Who's, Who, Inc.
24 332 Willis Avenue
Mineola, New York 11501
25
(cont'd)


HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4829

1 APPEARANCES (cont'd):

2 GARY SCHOER, ESQ. For Tara Garboski
3 6800 Jericho Turnpike
Syosset, New York 11791
4
ALAN M. NELSON, ESQ.
5 For Oral Frank Osman
3000 Marcus Avenue
6 Lake Success, New York 11042

7 WINSTON LEE, ESQ.
For Laura Weitz
8 319 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
9
MARTIN GEDULDIG, ESQ.
10 For Annette Haley
400 South Oyster Bay Road
11 Hicksville, New York 11801

12 JAMES C. NEVILLE, ESQ.
For Scott Michaelson
13 225 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
14
THOMAS F.X. DUNN, ESQ.
15 For ,
150 Nassau Street
16 New York, New York 10038

17 JOHN S. WALLENSTEIN, ESQ.
For Martin Reffsin 18 215 Hilton Avenue
Hempstead, New York 11551
19

20 Court Reporter: HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR
United States District Court
21 Two Uniondale Avenue
Uniondale, New York 11553
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
4830

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

2

3 (Whereupon, the following takes place in the

4 absence of the jury.)

5 THE COURT: Apropos, I was requested late

6 yesterday about Friday. I will endeavor not to hold court

7 on Friday after tomorrow. I have already told the jury

8 about tomorrow. I will try to avoid Fridays in the

9 future.

10 MR. LEE: Thank you.

11 MR. SCHOER: Thank you very much.

12 MR. TRABULUS: Thank you, your Honor.

13 THE COURT: Bring in the jury, please.

14 (Whereupon, the jury at this time entered the

15 courtroom.)

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

17 Please be seated. I want to compliment you

18 again, I know you were here at 20 after 9:00 and maybe

19 before that. I saw jurors coming in very early in the

20 morning. Thank you very much.

21 I am sorry for delaying the matter, I had several

22 other matters, including a complex civil case I am trying

23 to unravel. I have not succeeded yet, but I am still
24 delaying.
25

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4831

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

2 called as a witness, having been previously

3 duly sworn, was examined and testified as

4 follows:

5

6 THE COURT: Mr. Steven Watstein, you are

7 previously sworn and still under oath. You understand

8 that?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes.

10

11 CROSS-EXAMINATION (cont'd)

12 BY MR. NELSON:

13 Q I believe we left off yesterday at the conclusion of

14 the recording that was made on January 20th, 1993. Do you

15 recall that?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And am I correct that clearly this was viewed as

18 Mr. Martin being a job interview; is that correct?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And would I be correct in stating that you led

21 Mr. Martin on to believe that he might be coming to work

22 for you at some point in time by the time the interview

23 concluded?
24 A Could you rephrase the question, sir?
25 Q At the conclusion of the interview, although it is

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4832
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 not on the tape, I assume you told him you would be

2 getting back to him as to whether or not you presented him

3 with a job offer?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Is that correct?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Following this interview with Mr. Martin, did you

8 have any further contact?

9 A No, sir.

10 Q You did, however, continue to cooperate with the

11 postal inspectors?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Am I correct in January of 1993, in addition to

14 interviewing Mr. Martin, and I believe one other former

15 employee of Who's Who Worldwide, you interviewed and

16 recorded a number of former employees of Oxford Who's Who;

17 is that correct?

18 A That is correct.

19 Q And am I correct in April of 1993 you made numerous

20 telephone calls into Oxford Who's Who, posing as a

21 customer, and recording the employees, the salespeople of

22 Oxford Who's Who?

23 A No, sir, that's not accurate as you phrased it.
24 Q Did you make -- did you make recordings of employees
25 of Oxford Who's Who in April of 1993?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4833
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 A I made a singular call, sir.

2 Q I am not speaking of Who's Who Worldwide.

3 A I understand.

4 Q Just Oxford?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And you made one call?

7 A Yes.

8 Q And did you make any other recordings of employees of

9 Oxford Who's Who other than telephone calls in April of

10 1993?

11 A You are referring to me personally?

12 Q You personally.

13 A No, sir.

14 Q Did you go to work for Oxford Who's Who?

15 A No, sir.

16 Q Did you have any meetings with employees that weren't

17 recorded of Oxford Who's Who?

18 A No, sir.

19 Q Did you continue to participate in t he investigation

20 of Oxford Who's Who in April of 1993?

21 A To a limited extent, yes.

22 Q Am I correct that in July of 1993, a few months after

23 the recording that was made to Oxford Who's Who, Oxford
24 Who's Who was shut down and arrests were made of various
25 employees of Oxford Who's Who?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4834
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 A That's my understanding, yes, sir.

2 Q Am I correct that with respect to Who's Who

3 Worldwide, there were no arrests made during the summer,

4 July of 1993?

5 A That's correct, that is my understanding, yes, sir.

6 Q In fact, am I correct as it relates to the defendants

7 sitting here on trial, none of those individuals were

8 arrested until March of 1995, or more than two years after

9 this interview with Frank Martin which had been conducted

10 on Ja nuary 20th, 1993?

11 A That is correct, to the best of my knowledge, yes,

12 sir.

13 Q Now, am I correct that other than making a single

14 recording of a telephone conversation where you called

15 into Who's Who Worldwide in April of 1993 --

16 THE COURT: You are talking about Oxford?

17 MR. NELSON: No. This is Who's Who Worldwide,

18 your Honor.

19 THE COURT: Okay.

20 MR. NELSON: I will withdraw the question and

21 rephrase it.

22 THE COURT: No. My error. I thought you were

23 still talking about Oxford.
24 Q Am I correct that in April of 1993, at the same time
25 that you made a telephone call into Oxford Who's Who, you

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4835
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 also made a singular telephone call into Who's Who

2 Worldwide posing as a customer?

3 A That is correct.

4 Q And other than making that one telephone call into

5 Who's Who Worldwide in April of 1993, am I correct that

6 between January of 1993, where you recorded Mr. Martin,

7 and approximately the late spring, early summer of 1994,

8 you did not continue to participate in an ongoing

9 investigation into Who's Who Worldwide; is that correct?

10 A I believe it was August of '94. That's correct, sir.

11 Q So, for approximately an 18 month period of time you

12 did not participate in any ongoing investigation that was

13 taking place as it related to Who's Who Worldwide; is that

14 correct?

15 A I believe that --

16 Q I am asking if you participated.

17 A Yes.

18 Q Not if an investigation was going on, just if you

19 participated.

20 A I believe there might have been a phone conversation

21 or two that might have dealt with that subject

22 peripherally . If that means did not participate, then I

23 did not participate.
24 Q And those phone conferences would have been you
25 speaking with Inspector Biegelman?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4836
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 A Or Inspector Leonard.

2 Q However during that 18 month period of time or 24

3 month period of time from January of 1993, to

4 approximately August of 1994, am I correct that you did

5 participate in numerous other investigations?

6 A Yes, sir.

7 Q All right.

8 In fact, am I correct that you were recruited or

9 volunteered, I am not sure how it worked out but in the

10 investigation of a Robert Rosenfeld?

11 A Yes, sir. I was recruited.

12 Q Was that by the postal authorities or other agency?

13 A Postal.

14 Q Who was the inspector handling that investigation?

15 A Inspector Biegelman.

16 Q In fact, you recorded various seminars conducted by

17 principals of that company?

18 A Amongst other things, yes.

19 Q You recorded salespeople of Mr. Rosenfeld?

20 A I don't know if salespeople were recorded, as much as

21 general conversations.

22 Q And that is under the instruction and supervision of

23 Inspector Biegelman?
24 A Yes, sir.
25 Q And after you worked on that investigation, am I

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4837
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 correct, that you went back down to Florida in 1993, and

2 posed as a consultant to a company that was under

3 investigation by the Department of Labor; is that correct?

4 A I can't answer that question yes or no the way you

5 phrased it, sir.

6 Q Well, did you go -- did you pose as a consultant for

7 a company under investigation by the Department of Labor

8 in Florida?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Okay.

11 And that was in 1993?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Is that correct?

14 A Yes, sir.

15 Q Okay.

16 And you provided information to the Department of

17 Labor in an investigation that they were conducting in

18 Florida with respect to that company; is that correct?

19 A That is correct.

20 Q All right.

21 Am I correct that there was nobody criminally

22 charged as a result of that investigation?

23 A That is correct, to the best of my knowledge.
24 Q And while you were in Florida, you also assisted the
25 criminal fraud division of the Internal Revenue Service in

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4838
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 a tax investigation of other individuals; is that correct?

2 A That is correct.

3 Q And with respect to that investigation, nobody was

4 criminally charged either; is that correct?

5 A I believe that's true as of the date of Mr. Marvin's

6 letter. It may not be true today.

7 Q Am I correct that while you were in Florida, you also

8 assisted the postal authorities, posing as a consultant

9 for a number of different Florida based companies?

10 A That's accurate.

11 Q And based upon those different investigations, am I

12 correct that there were no arrests in those investigations

13 either; is that right?

14 A Not that I am aware of.

15 Q Now, am I correct that there came a period of time

16 while you were in Florida, that you traveled from Florida

17 to New Jersey, to help the FBI in an investigation they

18 were conduct in -- conducting in New Jersey?

19 A Yes, sir.

20 Q And you actually traveled from Florida at your own

21 expense to record that mee ting?

22 A No, not quite accurate.

23 Q You traveled from Florida at your own expense to
24 record the meeting; is that right?
25 A Yes, sir.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4839
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 Q You made recordings before the meeting, but not

2 actually while you were in attendance at the meetings; is

3 that correct?

4 A I actually made recordings at the meeting, but not at

5 the party.

6 Q Okay.

7 Would I be correct in stating that at least from

8 your position there was no expense that was too great in

9 order to assist the government, taking money out of your

10 own pocket in order to provide cooperation?

11 A I can't answer the question with a yes or no, sir.

12 Q You did pay your own expense to travel from Florida

13 to New Jersey; is that right?

14 A Yes, sir.

15 Q And that was in order to assist in the investigation

16 that was taking place in New Jersey; is that right?

17 A And I requested no reimbursement; that's correct,

18 sir.

19 Q And it was your hope that based upon that

20 investigation there would be a successful conclusion so

21 that information could be included in the letter submitted

22 to Judge Mishler, by Assistant United States Attorney Seth

23 Marvin; is that correct?
24 A That's not accurate, no.
25 Q You were hoping Mr. Marvin would tell Judge Mishler

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4840
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 about what you did to help the government; is that right?

2 A In terms of assistance, yes, sir.

3 Q And would I be correct in stating that you told us

4 yesterday and also the day before when Mr. Jenks was

5 speaking to you, that this letter that was goin g to be

6 submitted by Mr. Marvin, that letter was worth a million

7 dollars to you; is that right?

8 A That's the phraseology Mr. Jenks used and I had

9 concurred with it, yes.

10 Q Now, in addition to those investigations, am I

11 correct that you also secretly recorded calls and meetings

12 with the target of an advertising fraud investigation in

13 New York in 1994?

14 A That is correct.

15 Q And nobody was arrested as part of that investigation

16 either; is that right?

17 A They were exonerated, yes, sir.

18 Q And you also made numerous recordings posing as a

19 customer to two other completely unrelated Who's Who

20 investigations, one in the south and another one in New

21 York, not Oxford, not Who's Who Worldwide but some third

22 entity; is that correct?

23 A Could you repeat the question, please, sir?
24 Q Okay.
25 Let me break it down for you.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4841
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 You assisted the government by making recordings

2 posing as a customer into a number of different Who's Who

3 organizations; is that correct?

4 A No, it is not accurate, sir.

5 Q Did you make telephone calls to a Who's Who

6 organization operating in the southern part of the United

7 States at any point in time?

8 A I don't believe so. It was not a completed call at

9 least.

10 Q Did you attempt to assist in an investigation into

11 the were -- a Who's Who organization in the southern part

12 of the United States?

13 A I am not sure. I believe the attempt was, but we

14 didn't actually make the telephone call.

15 Q It is in Florida?

16 A No.

17 Q What state was it?

18 A It would have been a call from the pos t office in

19 Hicksville in 1993. To the best of my recollection either

20 we did not make contact with the individual, or the call

21 was not made. But there was no recording of it.

22 Q I would like to show you 3500-22-I, which is the

23 letter written by Mr. Marvin to Judge Mishler in your
24 behalf, and I would like to address your attention to
25 paragraph 9 of that letter.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4842
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 Does a review of that paragraph refresh your

2 recollection that you made several recorded calls to an

3 international Who's Who company in the south, which was

4 the subject of a pending investigation?

5 (Handed to the witness.)

6 A I don't believe that's accurate. But my memory could

7 be faulty in that matter.

8 Q I would like to direct your attention to paragraph 8

9 of the letter, and I would like you to read that paragraph

10 and see if that refreshes your recollection.

11 (Whereupon, at this time there was a pause in the

12 proceedings.)

13 Q Does that paragraph refresh your recollection that

14 you made numerous recorded calls to a bogus Who's Who

15 company on Long Island, which is the subject of a pending

16 investigation, which would have been pending as of July

17 21st, 1995?

18 A I believe that I made the phone calls, but they were

19 not consummated. I am not sure if they were recorded or

20 not.

21 Q So, I would be correct in stating that in addition to

22 Oxford Who's Who and Who's Who Worldwide, you attempted to

23 assist in the investigation of two other completely
24 unrelated Who's Who type organizations, during the course
25 of your cooperation; is that correct?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
4843
Watstein-cross/Nelson


1 A That's an accurate statement, yes, sir.


To continue ingesting this paradigm of perjury and worse,,
here is a full version of the Feb 19th transcript of Watstein's smug pursuit of self-interest


BR>
Corporate sponsors buy over a cup of food for your clicks.         Nice... saving a life with clicks!  
  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 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 Trials To Be Embarrased About. It certainly counts in the top ONE percent of the longest federal trials in American history, yet, not a word from the media.

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 proved that he is, provably, one of the most incompetent lawyers in America