It's worth noting that, beginning right here on page 7312, you see one of the most mindless exchanges between a prosecutor and a federal judge. You can't be sure they're not joking, except for the fact that Michael Maxes is indeed dead, said death expedited by the horrors of calumny surrounding the foundation of this miscarriage of justice, and that another hare-brained idea is extended licit currency.
Even when the judge lets the prosecutor know that NEITHER the judge nor prosecutor know what Mr. Maxes died from, the prosecutor continues with the indefatigable, "Yes, but....".
Let's continue with one of the Trials To Be Embarrased About, not a whisper of which appeared in any of 1200 news outlets throughout the YEARS that this case dragged on.
7310
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 10, 1998 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:30 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
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)
7311
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 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
7312
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: Mr. White, you wanted to see me?
6 MR. WHITE: Yes, your Honor, at the risk of
7 incurring your wrath again, I would like to revisit the
8 allocution we discussed last night?
9 THE COURT: Go ahead.
10 MR. WHITE: Your Honor gave us your thoughts
11 yesterday and that was clear. And I wanted to address
12 what you
said. And I think the two main points you made,
13 which perhaps I didn't do as clearly as I did yesterday.
14 One of what I understood your Honor's concerns
15 about the statement was that basically Maxes -- there was
16 a possibility that Mr. Maxes thought he was going to die.
17 Therefore, it wouldn't really be against his interest to
18 plead guilty.
19 It seems to me though from the case there was,
20 whether or not that is true is not relevant. Because
21 unless I am wrong in Scopo, the case we discussed a couple
22 of times, says precisely that you are not supposed to do
23 that. It says, quote, we stress -- not just we state, but 24 we stress, that a defendant's unilateral belief would not 25 suffice to neutralize the exposure ordinarily inherent in
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7313
1 a self-incriminating plea or a
llocution.
2 It doesn't say it wouldn't ordinarily do that, or
3 typically. It says flatly, we stress it does not.
4 It seems to me, your Honor, that that is an
5 improper analysis whether or not that is what he thought.
6 It did expose him to possible punishment.
7 And I would also suggest that the evidence about
8 what he was thinking at the time is somewhat equivocal.
9 Your Honor cited the fact that he died six months
10 later. But, yes, he died of something else. He didn't
11 die of the illness at the time he had the plea.
12 THE COURT: I don't know what he died of.
13 MR. WHITE: Okay.
14 THE COURT: Neither do you.
15 MR. WHITE: That's true. But it seems to me that
16 Scopo says that it is not an inquiry we are supposed to
17 make. It says his private belief would not suffice to
18 neutralize the exposure inherent in a plea of guilty.
19 Now, wi
th respect to the second point that your
20 Honor made about whether or not this allocution makes out
21 the existence of a conspiracy, I went back and looked at
22 the standard jury instruction from Sand regarding an
23 unlawful agreement, what your Honor would -- something 24 along the lines of what your Honor would tell the jury 25 what to determine -- how to determine if there is a
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7314
1 conspiracy.
2 The standard instruction says: The proof must
3 convince you that at least two persons joined together in
4 a common criminal scheme. Then it contains the language
5 that the agreement need not be expressed.
6 It says that it is sufficient for the government
7 to show that there was a mutual understanding, either
8 spoken or unspoken, between the defendants to cooperate
9 with each ot
her to accomplish the unlawful acts by means
10 of a joint plan or common design.
11 Mr. Maxes's allocution at a minimum says, I
12 worked as a member of the sales staff and as such I
13 followed the pitch sheets given me by Mr. Gordon and they
14 contained misrepresentations. And it makes reference on
15 the page 33, the misrepresentations that I and company
16 salespeople made.
17 It seems to me, your Honor, it is clearly
18 suggesting there is at least, between Mr. Maxes and
19 Mr. Gordon at the minimum, a mutual understanding to
20 cooperate with each other to accomplish the unlawful acts.
21 So, while it could be clearer, it doesn't seem to
22 me that it fails to make out the existence of the
23 conspiracy. 24 I want to add that I believe I didn't make that 25 argument as clearly as I should have yesterday.
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL
COURT REPORTER 7315
1 THE COURT: I heard your arguments. They are
2 very well put. The Scopo case does say what you say it
3 says.
4 I don't know if a defendant's unilateral belief
5 would not suffice to neutralize the exposure.
6 The Court went further on to say if Agro,
7 A G R O, privately believed that because of his illness
8 the Court would not require him to suffer incarceration,
9 there would be little reason for him to suppose that the
10 Court would also therefore excuse him from paying a fine.
11 The combination of the factors is what persuades
12 me not to allow this in. Not only is there -- I don't
13 think it is his personal belief alone. I think the man
14 was seriously ill, was obviously seriously ill in front of
15 me. In fact, I believe I put on the record, if you would
16 like to sit down during the allocution, that would be all
17 right.
18 He was just operated on for cancer. He was
19 taking chemotherapy. In addition to the fact that he --
20 whether he privately believed -- I don't think it is only
21 that he privately believed. I think it is the fact.
22 Secondly, he had a cooperation agreement with the
23 government, I believe, did he not? 24 MR. WHITE: He did. 25 THE COURT: And the Scopo case further says,
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7316
1 quote, if, however, a pleading defendant had an agreement
2 with the government, or with the Court, that he would not
3 be punished for the crimes to which he allocuted, than
4 that allocution would not subject him to criminal
5 liability and would not constitute a statement against his
6 penal interest within the meaning of Rule 804(b)(3).
7 There was no agreement he would not go to ja
il.
8 There was just a cooperation agreement.
9 So, we have the following factors here: One, a
10 man seriously ill, visibly seriously ill before me, of
11 cancer; having been operated on and taking chemotherapy;
12 two, a cooperation agreement with the government; three,
13 having been fired by Bruce Gordon; four, an allocution
14 which did not expressly ask whether there was a
15 conspiracy. It is very unusual. Five, the only basis for
16 this to go in would be to show that there was a
17 conspiracy. It could not go in to show guilt on the part
18 of any defendant. The cases are clear about that.
19 That combination of factors in my view, if you
20 add 403 to the till, and that he allegedly perjured
21 himself in a Reed case, we don't want to have a mini-trial
22 on Mr. Maxes.
23 On the combination of the factors and in the 24 exercise of my discretion, I d
ecline to allow that plea in 25 evidence.
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7317
1 Anything else?
2 MR. WHITE: Your Honor was going to consider
3 putting in the paragraph in that information.
4 THE COURT: Can I see the information?
5 MR. NELSON: If I may approach the bench for a
6 moment, your Honor, I have the information?
7 THE COURT: Is it in the same thing?
8 MR. NELSON: Yes.
9 THE COURT: I can't even open that book, it is so
10 full.
11 MR. NELSON: 3500-18-H, and I referred to
12 paragraph five, which is on page 2 of the information.
13 Your Honor, I had the opportunity this morning to
14 re-read United States against Muyet, M U Y E T,
15 958 F. Supp. 136. And as I noted yesterday on the record,
16 the case before Judge Keenan, United States v. Lopez, the
17 procedural history of that cas
e was such that a motion in
18 limine was made to limit the scope of what could be
19 brought out in co-defendant's allocutions. At that time
20 Judge Keenan referred to Muyet. I re-read Muyet this
21 morning. And interestingly, and I can add to the Court
22 the significant pages found on pages 138 through 140.
23 What Judge Leisure did in the case was to redact 24 the allocution and limit it to those portions which were 25 specific statements against that individual's penal
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7318
1 interest and that's why they would be admissible.
2 I submit it premised upon the allocution that
3 took place with respect to Mr. Maxes, that in fact such a
4 redaction would not be possible. And there is nothing
5 that goes to the proof of the conspiracy and the
6 allocutions, therefore no portion should be admissib
le at
7 all.
8 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, I would like to add to
9 that that yesterday the United States Supreme Court
10 decided a case called Gray against Maryland. I know it
11 only from having read the syllabus by the reporter.
12 THE COURT: That's a Bruton case?
13 MR. TRABULUS: Yes. It was a five to four
14 decision.
15 THE COURT: I am familiar with it.
16 MR. TRABULUS: They held that the redaction there
17 was improper. They ruled for the defendant. I have not
18 read the opinion. I just read the syllabus.
19 THE COURT: What I got from the summary that I
20 received is that up to that point, where there has been a
21 Bruton problem, namely a statement by a co-defendant who
22 doesn't testify inculpating another defendant, the Court
23 could redact or revise the statement to change the 24 pronouns, change the nouns. Instead of saying Joe Doe
25 committed the crime, another person committed the crime.
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7319
1 Of course, there are only two people there.
2 MR. TRABULUS: Right.
3 THE COURT: So that has been done with varying
4 effect, rather than severing the trial. Of course, the
5 better practice would be to sever the trial. But the
6 United States Supreme Court yesterday five to four said
7 substituting the pronoun or some other fictitious name or
8 noun for the co-defendant -- instead of saying Joe did it,
9 a person did it, or another human being did it, you can't
10 do that. You have to redact everything and not mention
11 anything about the other person even being there.
12 So, you will leave it, I did it, not the
13 co-defendant.
14 MR. TRABULUS: That's the whole point here.
15 Because in this paragraph that is being discussed, it says
16 together with others.
17 When you look at the nature of the evidence in
18 this case, the others would clearly be understood to refer
19 to the other defendants here, or certainly Mr. Gordon.
20 On the basis of what the Supreme Court decided
21 yesterday, that would not be proper. Although it is not a
22 classic Bruton situation with respect to the co-defendant,
23 analytically it is the same. 24 You have an unavailable witness introducing a 25 statement, and the statement inferentially refers to
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7320
1 Mr. Gordon, and under this case it was decided yesterday
2 that it should not come in.
3 THE COURT: Do we have anything more to say other
4 than this? I don't want to keep the jury waiting. I will
5 talk to them and let them know we are delayed.
6 MS. SCOTT: I have the tapes to discuss.
7 THE COURT: I will then go in and tell the jury.
8 By the way, I like that point bringing very
9 current, something that happened yesterday in the Supreme
10 Court. Very good, Mr. Trabulus.
11 MR. TRABULUS: Thank you, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: A good thing I am aware of the case.
13 MR. JENKS: Judge, Mr. Trabulus stays out all
14 night on the Internet.
15 THE COURT: We are supposed to get advance
16 information. I don't know how you got it.
17 MR. TRABULUS: I stay on my computer to keep my
18 son off of it.
19 MR. WALLENSTEIN: He hasn't slept in eight weeks.
20 THE COURT: Sorry to put you at a disadvantage,
21 Mr. White. You will come back tomorrow with another case
22 to nullify that case.
23 MR. WHITE: I am working on it. 24 (The following takes place in the jury room.) 25 THE COURT: Good morning, members
of this
HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 7321
1 wonderful jury, which has almost -- almost all of you have
2 very nice smiles on your face. If you go before I get in,
3 as soon as I walk in you have a smile. I don't know what
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.