7040 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 9, 1998 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:45 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: NORMAN T
RABULUS, 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)
7041
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 Reporters: HARRY RAPAPORT OWEN M. WICKER 21 United States District Court Two Uniondale Avenue 22 Uniondale, New York 11553 (516) 485-6558 23 24 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by Computer-Assisted Transcription 25
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7042
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: Good morning.
6 MR. SCHOER: Good morning. Mr. Lee just came in
7 from the rain.
8 THE COURT: Is it raining outside?
9 Why were we supposed to be here early? Anybody
10 know?
11 MR. TRABULUS: I recall on Thursday Mr. White
12 indicated there might be some matters
he wanted to take
13 up. But ultimately I think your Honor said we should be
14 here at 9:30.
15 THE COURT: All right.
16 MR. NEVILLE: I placed before the Court my
17 proposed instruction to the jury about Scott Michaelson
18 not being here today.
19 THE COURT: You wanted me to say something about
20 it?
21 MR. NEVILLE: Yes. My client will not be here
22 today.
23 THE COURT: All right. 24 MS. SCOTT: We have a couple of matters to raise, 25 your Honor.
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7043
1 First, going back to Thursday when your Honor
2 admitted that large grouping of exhibits --
3 THE COURT: I can't hear you.
4 MS. SCOTT: Okay.
5 Going back to Thursday morning when your Honor
6 admitted the large group of exhibits, the one that is too
7 lengthy to read into the record right
now. What I did is
8 wrote a summary list of those exhibits and marked it
9 Government's Exhibit 1613. On that exhibit I crossed off
10 the exhibits that were excluded by your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Okay.
12 MS. SCOTT: I was going to give that to
13 Mr. Rapaport so he can include it into the trial record.
14 THE COURT: You are offering
15 Government's Exhibit 1613, which is a list of the
16 exhibits?
17 MS. SCOTT: That's right.
18 THE COURT: Introduced?
19 MR. WHITE: Yes, which are all the exhibits your
20 Honor admitted on Thursday.
21 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1613 in
22 evidence.
23 (Government's Exhibit 1613 received in evidence.) 24 MS. SCOTT: I am handing it to Mr. Rapaport. 25 THE COURT: Fine.
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7044
1 MS. SCOTT: I did research on the issue of
2 commercial paper. There is another issue I want to raise
3 about playing some tapes which brings up a whole host of
4 other issues, and I wonder if you wish to have us argue it
5 later when the jury is not waiting.
6 THE COURT: What is this now?
7 MS. SCOTT: I am hoping to admit a group of
8 exhibits as commercial paper, checks your Honor excluded
9 from the list of exhibits which I handed to Mr. Rapaport.
10 THE COURT: Checks from third parties?
11 MS. SCOTT: Yes.
12 THE COURT: You have law on that?
13 MS. SCOTT: Yes. Commercial paper is self
14 authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence 902(9).
15 In addition to that I have a case here, your
16 Honor --
17 THE COURT: Just one minute now.
18 MS. SCOTT: Yes.
19 (Whereupon, at this time there was a pause in the
20 proceedings.)
21 THE COURT: Okay.
22 MR. WHITE: In
addition to that I have a case
23 called United States against Dawson, 400 F.2d 194, in 24 which it was held by the Second Circuit that cancelled 25 checks were admissible to prove that certain payments had
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7045
1 been made.
2 Now, overlooking all of that, the reason we
3 offered the checks in the first place, the basis for
4 offering them in the first place were as business records,
5 because they were copies which were kept by the company in
6 addition to all the other documents they had to
7 commemorate each sale. So they attached the copies of the
8 checks to the invoice, the leads card and the credit card
9 slip. Like the credit card slip these copies of the
10 checks show that the payment was made. The argument we
11 make is to show that the payment was made in exactly the
12 same w
ay that the credit card slips did, and we offered
13 them as business records.
14 However, what I am offering to your Honor in
15 addition to that is this independent basis for admitting
16 the copies as commercial paper, which is
17 self-authenticating and independently admissible.
18 THE COURT: Were these checks attached to the
19 records of Who's Who Worldwide?
20 MS. SCOTT: They were. They were attached to
21 each sale. I had to go over the numbers to show you.
22 There are about three of them.
23 THE COURT: You have given me how many reasons to 24 admit it? 25 MS. SCOTT: Business records --
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7046
1 THE COURT: How many reasons do I have to knock
2 out now, business records and self-authenticating?
3 MS. SCOTT: Self-authenticating is part of the
4 analysis to admit it as independent commercial paper.
5 Self-authenticating takes part --
6 THE COURT: I thought that you said it was a
7 separate and independent reason?
8 MS. SCOTT: If I said that I am mistaken.
9 THE COURT: I didn't say you said it. I thought
10 you said it.
11 Those are the reasons?
12 MS. SCOTT: Yes.
13 THE COURT: Anybody objecting?
14 MR. SCHOER: Yes.
15 THE COURT: Didn't you hear the very convincing
16 argument by Ms. Scott?
17 MR. SCHOER: I heard the argument by Ms. Scott.
18 My position is, Judge, that -- that these
19 documents shouldn't be admitted primarily for relevance
20 purposes, because while they may prove that a payment was
21 made, that is not the issue in this case.
22 The issue in this case is proving that those
23 checks were in the mails somehow, because that's what the 24 charge is. And they can't prove that the
checks were sent 25 in the mail without someone here to say that they were
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7047
1 sent.
2 THE COURT: That's one argument. But of course,
3 aren't they relevant insofar as they get down to the
4 basics of what mail fraud is, a scheme or device or, or
5 artifice to obtain money by false representations; isn't
6 that what mail fraud is about? Isn't this the money that
7 the government says was obtained? You say that is not
8 relevant?
9 MR. SCHOER: They can't prove that with respect
10 to those customers there were any misrepresentations.
11 THE COURT: That's another matter. But they have
12 the burden of proof. And they have the burden of proof
13 that there was, as a result of fraudulent representations,
14 money or property -- that's what the statute says, doesn't
15 it?
16 MR. SCHOER: Yes.
17 THE COURT: Money or property was obtained. This
18 is the money they say was obtained. It is a basic
19 elemental reason to be relevant.
20 I don't see that at all.
21 Insofar as whether it was mailed is another
22 matter. It is certainly relevant, Mr. Schoer. Your
23 objection on the ground of relevancy is overruled. 24 MR. SCHOER: At least with respect to one of 25 them, your Honor, I have not looked again, one of them
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7048
1 only has the front of the check and it doesn't show that
2 it was in fact negotiated. I am not sure about that.
3 That's from my perusal of the exhibits last week.
4 THE COURT: What do you say about that one check,
5 that only the front of the check is there?
6 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, I would submit this
7 document was part of the c
ollection of documents held in
8 the records of Who's Who Worldwide. And it was part of
9 one of the documents they used to commemorate the sale.
10 Instead of having a credit card slip, they had a copy of
11 the check. They had to send the original check back to
12 the bank.
13 THE COURT: Good old Saks/Jakobetz. What a good
14 case that is. When I read that I recoiled, Mr. Schoer.
15 That's what the rule says, make it, right?
16 MR. SCHOER: Yes.
17 THE COURT: Here you have a third-party making
18 it, yet it is part of the business record. Judge Pratt,
19 he was something, I tell you. WHAT a loss to the federal
20 judiciary he was, although he wrote the Jakobetz case.
21 What else did you want to tell me, Mr. Schoer?
22 MR. SCHOER: Nothing?
23 THE COURT: Mr. Nelson? 24 MR. NELSON: Nothing. 25 THE COURT: I think you are right. The
H
ARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7049
1 objections are overruled. I think that the authenticity
2 is established if it need be, by 902(9). It is a record
3 attached on a regular basis, like the toll receipts on the
4 Triboro Bridge, a regular basis. It becomes parts of the
5 record of Who's Who Worldwide.
6 What exhibits are they?
7 MS. SCOTT: I will have to pull them together and
8 set forth the numbers clearly this afternoon.
9 THE COURT: I have no doubt that you will do
10 that, Ms. Scott.
11 What else? We have a jury that were here
12 amazingly close to the time, although one juror is from
13 Staten Island. Can you imagine that?
14 MS. SCOTT: We can make the argument later in the
15 day not to keep the jury waiting.
16 THE COURT: Good.
17 Let me look at the cautionary instruction that
18 Mr. Neville gave me.
19 That's very good, Mr. Neville. I accept it in
20 its entirety. I couldn't put a finger on it.
21 MR. NEVILLE: Thank you.
22 THE COURT: We have two requests by the jurors.
23 One juror requested for a meeting she cannot 24 miss. She wanted to leave at 4:00 o'clock on Wednesday, 25 and I will grant that.
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR CP CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7050
1 Another juror has some kind of medical
2 appointment at 5:00 o'clock, and wants to leave at 4:30 on
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 astonishing 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 for that all-important government accountability, by urgently contacting your Senator, the White House, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Who's Who Tragedy Thomas FX Dunn proving again that he may well be the scoundrel of bad attorneys
Most Corrupted Federal Trials - 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
