6842 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 5, 1998 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:20 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: NORMAN 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 6843 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 , 15 150 Nassau Street New York, New York 10038 16 JOHN S. WALLENSTEIN, ESQ. 17 For Martin 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 OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6844 1 (Case called.) 2 THE COURT: Mr. Dunn, your client is not present. 3 MR. DUNN: That's correct, Your Honor, but I 4 believe we can go forward at least with the oral argument, 5 anything before 9:30. 6 THE COURT: I wanted to take up two things. One, 7 the outstanding records that Mr. Schoer was supposed to 8 examine. Do you have any objection to going ahead with 9 that? 10 MR. DUNN: No, Your Honor. 11 THE COURT: Would your client have any 12 objection? 13 MR. DUNN: No. 14 THE COURT: We'll repeat it when he gets in. 15 MR. DUNN: That's all right. 16 MR. SCHOER: Judge, I have no further objections 17 other than the ones that were expressed last night. 18 THE COURT: Well, then, that's the ruling. 19 I'll wait until Mr. Rubin gets here because I 20 wanted to talk to you about this Judgment of Conviction of 21 Ihlenfeldt. 22 MR. DUNN: Your Honor, you can go forward with 23 that also because I really have no more questions to ask. 24 THE COURT: I think we better wait. 25 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, just for clarity sake, I OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6845 1 just wanted to make clear that Your Honor has just ruled 2 that list of exhibits is admissible, except those ones 3 Your Honor specifically excluded. 4 THE COURT: The checks and everything like that.
5 MS. SCOTT: We have not provided you about law 6 about the commercial paper. We will try to do it over the 7 weekend. We haven't had a chance last night. 8 THE COURT: Try. 9 MS. SCOTT: Also, Government's Exhibit 15-D which 10 is one of the exhibits I offered in this group had been 11 admitted earlier. It's an order form but I had misnamed 12 it, either Government's Exhibit 15-B or 15-C. So just for 13 the sake of clarity. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Dunn, do you want to go into this 15 without your client? 16 MR. DUNN: That's fine. Mr. Rubin is coming in 17 now. 18 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, the 17-D subpoena Your 19 Honor signed is an order on the second page and unless it 20 is not signed the marshal will not serve it. 21 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't see it on the 22 second page. 23 MR. TRABULUS: That's all right. It's on the 24 top.
25 MR. NEVILLE: Your Honor, might I ask a quick OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6846 1 question regarding my client's request to absent himself 2 this Monday from the trial. Would Your Honor consider 3 instructing the jury in some form or fashion? 4 THE COURT: Sure, if you want me to. You compose 5 an instruction and I will give it to the jury. Make it 6 very beneficial to you. 7 MR. NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: I see Mr. Rubin is here. 9 MR. DUNN: Yes, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: Did you tell Mr. Rubin about what has 11 gone on up to now, that Mr. Schoer had no objection to the 12 other document? 13 MR. DUNN: Yes, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: And is he satisfied with us having 15 proceeded with that in his absence? 16 MR. DUNN: Yes, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: With regard to the Judgment
of 18 Conviction of Rolf Eric Ihlenfeldt, he's the witness on 19 the stand, the Judgment of Conviction which is dated 20 August 23, 1996, provides for 13 months incarceration and 21 says the following, including the following. He's put on 22 supervised release for three years and "the defendant is 23 to pay to the United States Attorney's Office, 225 Cadman 24 Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York, 11201, the sum of $10,000 25 in monthly installments of 10 percent of his gross monthly OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6847 1 income during the three years he is on supervised 2 release. The U.S. Attorney's Office shall make a pro rata 3 distribution to the victims, if found." 4 And under a separate sheet in the judgment 5 entitled "restitution," it says the same thing. So 6 apparently from that I deduct that instead of paying it in 7 m
onthly installments he paid it in one time. He said he 8 borrowed it or his father-in-law gave it to him. 9 MR. JENKS: I'll move on, Your Honor. It speaks 10 for itself. 11 THE COURT: Right. 12 All right. Let's bring in the jury. 13 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, I just want to clarify 14 about Government's Exhibit 15-D. That's an order form. I 15 had previously asked for it to be admitted but I had given 16 it the wrong exhibit number. I think I called it 15-B or 17 15-C and that I did with Wendi Springer. So it was 18 previously admitted into evidence under the wrong name and 19 I want to clarify for the record that the office form is 20 actually 15-D, as in Daniel. 21 Thank you. 22 THE COURT: Very well. 23 There's a request by a jury to leave at 4 o'clock 24 on March 18th. What a pessimistic approach that is. But 25 of course this juror is a shop steward
and has a meeting OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6848 1 and I'll let the juror leave at 4 o'clock at March 18th. 2 THE COURT: Where is the witness? 3 MS. SCOTT: Right here. 4 (Jury enters.) 5 THE COURT: Good morning, members of the jury. 6 Please be seated. 7 Again, I must compliment you. You are getting 8 better as time goes on. I timed your arrival, at least 9 when I heard about it, at 9:18 this morning. That's a new 10 world record. We have now exceeded the Olympic record and 11 now you're on the World record. 12 Also, I have a request from a juror and I 13 hesitate to say that we look so far ahead but perhaps it 14 is wise that the jury leave at 4 o'clock on Wednesday, 15 March 18th. I will excuse the jury on Wednesday, March 16 18th, at 4 o'clock. 17 You may proceed. 18 (Continued.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6849 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Jenks
1 R O L F I H L E N F E L D T , having been previously 2 sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was examined and 3 testified as follows: 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION. 5 BY MR. JENKS: 6 Q Mr. Ihlenfeldt, yesterday when Ms. Scott questioned 7 you on direct examination she had asked you a question 8 about your application about your current employer. Do 9 you recall that? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And you had indicated there was an optional section 12 on that application as to whether or not you would inform 13 the employer of your prior criminal history? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And you chose not to exercise that option and write 16 it down; am I correct? 17 A Correct. 18 Q Did the employer question you ab
out leaving that 19 section blank? 20 A No. 21 Q Now, you are on supervised release as of August 23, 22 1996; am I right? 23 A I'm not sure of the exact day. I think it would have 24 been August 28th. 25 Q The day you were sentenced before Judge Spatt, OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6850 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Jenks
1 correct? 2 A Oh, was I on supervised release? 3 Q Yes. Were you placed on supervised release for three 4 years before Judge Spatt? 5 A Yes. 6 Q The day is not important. 7 In August of 1996 you were placed on supervised 8 release, correct? 9 A Uhm, I don't know if that is the day. I was 10 sentenced that day. 11 Q After you completed your sentence, your term of 12 supervised release began, right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q So it actually began once you were done, finished
15 with the halfway house in June of 1997? 16 A Yes. 17 Q And your supervised release ends in the year 2000? 18 A Yes. 19 Q So we clear this up, the restitution that you were 20 ordered to pay by Judge Spatt was $10,000, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And you paid that in a lump sum from your 23 father-in-law after you were released from the halfway 24 house? 25 A Yes. OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6851 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Jenks
1 Q And you had no other financial obligations from the 2 Court to pay any further restitution; am I right? 3 A No. 4 Q All right. 5 Now, the supervised release you report in 6 Hempstead, you said? 7 A Yes. 8 Q That's where the supervised release probation 9 officers are located, correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q On Clinton Street in Hempstead? 12 A Yes
. 13 Q Now, is it not a term and condition of your 14 supervised release that you notify your employer of the 15 fact that you're on supervised release? 16 A No. 17 Q Did you have to make any special arrangements with 18 your supervised release officer not to notify your 19 employer? 20 A No. 21 Q Did you read the terms and conditions of your 22 supervised release? 23 A Uhm, I believe I did. 24 Q Is there a term and condition which says that you 25 have to notify your employer of your status while on OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6852 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Jenks
1 supervised release? 2 A I don't believe so. 3 Q Okay. 4 Now, when Mr. Schoer was questioning you 5 yesterday, you said it took you approximately three weeks 6 while you were at Pacific Consultants to learn the entire 7 scam o
f Pacific Consultants. About three weeks? 8 A About three weeks to understand the business, yes. 9 Q To understand the business. 10 And while you were at Costa Consultants it said 11 it took you approximately three weeks or so that these 12 people were not going to get loans; am I right? 13 A It took about three weeks before we started getting 14 denials from the first lender and we had hoped to still 15 get loans from other lenders, but we knew at that point 16 that the first lender denied every loan application we put 17 in. 18 Q It took you about three weeks to learn that from 19 Mr. Donahue? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Did you personally ever deal with Mr. Donahue or John 22 Beatrice? 23 A I may have had conversations with him. But John 24 Beatrice actually submitted the applications and paid the 25 fee. OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT R
EPORTER 6853 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Jenks
1 Q He was the -- Beatrice was the contact with Donahue, 2 correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Do you know for a fact whether or not Beatrice paid 5 money to Donahue to issue rejection letters or denial 6 letters? 7 A I would say that -- 8 Q Well, do you know for a fact, I asked you. Yes or 9 no? 10 A I can't answer that with a yes or no. 11 THE COURT: Hold it a minute, Mr. Jenks. 12 BY MR. JENKS: 13 Q Do you know for a fact whether or not Beatrice paid 14 money to Donahue to issue rejection letters? 15 A I don't know for a fact. 16 Q All right. 17 At these other places it took you like three or 18 four weeks, three weeks at Pacific Consultants to learn 19 the scam of the business and at Costa Consultants three 20 weeks to realize that a person wasn't going to get a 21 legitimate lo
an? 22 A From the first lender, yes. 23 Q From the first lender, okay. 24 But when you went to Sterling Who's Who, you were 25 there about what, a week, week and-a-half? OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6854 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Jenks
1 A Yes. 2 Q How many full days did you work there? 3 A I'm not really sure. 4 Q About a week and-a-half? 5 A About a week and-a-half. 6 Q So seven or eight days, business days? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And yet in those seven or eight business days you 9 were able to determine that it was a script of lies and it 10 had no value to the customer. In seven or eight days you 11 were able to figure that out about this company? 12 A Based on my experience in the fact. 13 Q But in seven or eight dates you were able to figure 14 it out at this place. 15 You didn't develop a script at S
terling Who's 16 Who, did you? 17 A No. 18 Q You didn't develop the registry, did you? 19 A No. 20 Q You didn't develop the benefits package to the 21 members of the CD ROM? 22 A No. 23 Q You didn't develop anything at Sterling Who's Who? 24 A No. 25 Q You weren't privy to any inside information from the OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6855 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Jenks
1 front office from people like Debra Benjamin or Liz 2 Sautter, were you? 3 A No. 4 Q But yet it's your testimony it took you three weeks 5 at Pacific Consultants to figure out there was a scam 6 going on, but at Sterling Who's Who it took you just a 7 week and-a-half, correct? 8 A Based on my past experience, yes. 9 Q You also said you didn't want to sell any memberships 10 to anyone while you were at Sterling Who's Who,
correct? 11 A Right. 12 Q And was that the instruction of Inspector Biegelman 13 not to sell any memberships? 14 A I don't believe it was. 15 Q Are you saying when you went in there Biegelman said 16 if you have to sell a membership to a customer, sell a 17 membership, although you were undercover and 18 investigating the organization? 19 A I don't recall those statements being made. 20 Q Were you prohibited by Biegelman from selling 21 memberships? 22 A I don't recall being prohibited. 23 Q Now, you said you didn't want to take peoples' credit 24 card numbers, correct? 25 A Yes. OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6856 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Jenks
1 Q Although you had the opportunity to take several 2 credit card numbers, right? 3 A I believe I had the opportunity to take two. 4 Q At least two or
more? 5 A I would think two. 6 Q How many customers did you speak to then? 7 A Maybe 20 or 30. 8 Q 20 or 30 calls a day? 9 A Yes. I make that many calls. I left a lot of 10 messages, so I don't know exactly the number of people I 11 actually spoke to. 12 Q So all total maybe you spoke to 100, 150 people while 13 you were there? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And you didn't sell one membership, correct? 16 A No. 17 Q And then they fired you? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Because you weren't producing any sales? 20 A That was the reason they gave me, yes. 21 Q Were there people that were qualified that you spoke 22 to to become members of the Registry? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q Now, you didn't sell any memberships but you thought 25 it was okay to take some cards and printed materials from OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
6857 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Trabulus
1 Sterling Who's Who? 2 A I can't answer that with a yes or no. 3 Q Well, those terms, those cards and those materials, 4 they didn't belong to you, did they? 5 A No. 6 Q They belonged to the corporation? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Did you tell Inspector Biegelman that you were going 9 to take those materials prior to taking them? 10 A I don't recall if I did or not. 11 Q But you did take them, correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q All right. 14 MR. JENKS: I have nothing further, Your Honor. 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. TRABULUS: 17 Q Mr. Ihlenfeldt, Ms. Scott asked you whether or not it 18 made any difference, your criminal record, as to what was 19 on the tapes? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And I think the tapes are the tapes, whatever your 22 criminal record? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did you have any discussions with Inspector Biegelman 25 as to why it was -- withdrawn. OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6858 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Trabulus
1 How much time did you spend making the telephone 2 calls into Who's Who Worldwide and Sterling posing as a 3 customer? How many hours do you think that would be? 4 A Total, maybe five or six hours. Total. 5 Q Did you have any discussions with Inspector Biegelman 6 as to why he wanted you to do that as opposed to having a 7 postal inspector do it? 8 MS. SCOTT: Objection. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 A No. 11 Q Did you ever ask him why he would want to have a 12 felon convicted of telemarketing fraud testifying about 13 that rather than a law enforcement official? 14 A No. 15 Q Did he ever indicate to you that he wanted to have 16 somebody up there who was guilty of telemarketing fraud to 17 create an aura in this case? Did he ever say anything 18 like that to you? 19 A No. 20 Q Now, yesterday you told Ms. Scott that you agreed to 21 pay $300,000 as restitution. Do you recall saying that? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And in fact, the specific question to you was, page 24 6,800, line 16. 25 "Question: What amount did you agree to pay as OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6859 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Trabulus
1 restitution of your crimes? 2 "Answer: $300,000." 3 Now, after that, of course, you were sentenced 4 and the Judge for reasons that we didn't go into, may have 5 decided that you only, as part of your sentence, are going 6 to be required to pay $10,000 restitution; is that 7 correct? 8 A Yes. 9 Q But do you regard yourself as still having an 10 outstanding agreement to which you wer
e a party to pay the 11 remaining $290,000? 12 A No. 13 Q So you didn't agree to pay $300,000 at all, right? 14 A That's what the statement says. 15 Q Well, you say there was an agreement between you and 16 the government that you would pay 300,000 in restitution? 17 A That's what the statement says. 18 Q Didn't that just say that you might get up to 19 300,000, not that you necessarily would be obligated to 20 pay it? 21 A I don't know. 22 Q Can I have the statement you were referring to? I 23 think that is 24-B. 24 (Handing.) Is this where you agree to pay 25 restitution? OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6860 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Trabulus
1 I'm showing you 3500 24-D. Do you recognize that 2 as your cooperation agreement? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And is there anything in there were it says that you
5 agree to pay 315, I'll point you to a reference where it 6 says 315,000. 7 You are not agreeing to pay that, right? 8 A I don't know. 9 Q Take a look. 10 Well, do you have any kind of written agreement 11 with the government that you will be paying the remaining 12 $290,000? 13 A No. 14 Q Has anyone from the government ever told you that you 15 are disobeying any agreement they had with you if you are 16 not paying more than the 10,000? 17 A No. 18 Q So there really was no agreement to pay 300,000, is 19 that correct, it was just a possibility to you that held 20 out to you that you might pay that, right? 21 A I'm not sure. 22 Q Now, I think you testified yesterday that your 23 company, Costa Consultants, paid Mr. Donahue a piece of 24 each of the $249 you took in, right? 25 A It wasn't my company. It was a company that I
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 6861 Ihlenfeldt-cross/Trabulus
1 managed. 2 Q The company that you managed, right, the one that was 3 Beatrices' company but you managed? 4 A Yes. 5 Q I stand corrected. Is THIS where a federal prosecutor is getting his best information?
Let's be repetitious: This DOES appear to be one of the Trials To Be Embarrased About.
Trials To Be Embarrased About - The Who's Who Tragedy
The Who's Who Worldwide Tragedy has to count as being among the Trials To Be Embarrased About.
For Reid Elsevier to have climbed so high up into bed with such 'vaunted' federal judges,
dispensing cash and favors with such profundity, tells sadly on all of us,
for tolerance of such high crimes is tantamount to participation.
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.