8003 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 17, 1998 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:30 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 8004
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 Mart
in 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 (Case called.)
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8005
1 THE COURT: Where is Mr. Lee? Will somebody get
2 him, please?
3 Mr. Trabulus, you want to see me.
4 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, all I want to do is
5 I'm handing up defendant Gordon's request to charge. I've
6 given a copy to all counsel.
7 THE COURT: Hand it up.
8 MR. SCHOER: Judge, I will have a request to
9 charge. I have an original and courtesy copy to the
10 Court.
11 MR. TRABULUS: And does Your Honor want a
12 courtesy copy?
13 THE COURT: Sure.
14 MR. TRABULUS: I'll get one for you.
15 THE COURT: Hand it up.
16 Thank you.
17 Are we ready to proceed?
18 Let's bring in the jury.
19 (Jury enters.)
20 THE COURT: Good morning, members of the jury.
21 Please be seated.
22 Thank you again for your diligence in staying
23 with it. This period of time and having the nice 24 disposition that you appear to have, or is it because the 25 trial is coming to an end. I don't know what it is, but
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8006 Reffsin-direct/Wallenstein
1 you seem to be in good form for which I'm happy to see.
2 You may proceed.
3 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
4 M A R T I N R E F F S I N , having been previously
5 sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was examined and
6 testified as follows:
7 DIRECT EXAMINA
TION
8 BY MR. WALLENSTEIN:
9 Q Mr. Reffsin, we've heard a significant amount of
10 testimony in this trial with respect to the loans that
11 Bruce Gordon took from Who's Who Worldwide. And you were
12 present when Mr. Rosenblatt testified with respect to the
13 treatment of those loans as loans rather than income?
14 A Yes. Yes, I was.
15 Q Can you explain why you treated them as loans and
16 under what circumstances you would have treated them as
17 income?
18 A Well, obviously Mr. Gordon did not say they were
19 income. Mr. Gordon said they were loans. To the extent
20 that he could prove to me they were loans, they would
21 remain loans. I explained to Mr. Gordon that in order for
22 them to be deemed loans he would have to meet certain
23 requirements such as repayment. 24 Q And did you see evidence of repayment? 25 A Yes. In January of 1993 he repaid $235,000.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8007 Reffsin-direct/Wallenstein
1 Q And would it be a fair statement that it was the
2 intention of Mr. Gordon based on what he told you that the
3 loans would in fact be repaid over time?
4 A Yes. We had several discussions during the course of
5 time in which he guaranteed me that the loans would be
6 repaid.
7 Q Now, you prepared the 433 A collection information
8 statements?
9 A Yes.
10 Q At what point in time?
11 A Around May. That's when they were physically
12 prepared.
13 Q Of what year?
14 A 1993.
15 Q And would it be a fair statement at the time you
16 prepared them you did not have the benefit of what we now
17 have which is almost five years of hindsight?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q So the bankruptcy had not yet occurred?
20
A That's correct.
21 Q And based upon information that you had from
22 Mr. Gordon and other sources, what was your expectation
23 with respect to 1994? 24 A 1994 was the year that Mr. Gordon agreed and I had 25 indicated that he would have to repay all the loans.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8008 Reffsin-direct/Wallenstein
1 Q That was your understanding in 1993?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q And did something occur that prevented that from
4 happening in 1994?
5 A Yes, the bankruptcy.
6 Q And that was in March of 1994?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q And with respect to the tax returns that were filed
9 on Mr. Gordon's behalf, would it be a fair statement you
10 treated the loans as loans and not income on those
11 returns?
12 A Yes, I did.
13 Q And that's for the reasons you've already stated; is
14
that correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Did you at any time enter into any agreement with
17 Mr. Gordon with respect to -- withdrawn.
18 Did you at any time have an agreement with
19 Mr. Gordon to in any way impede the Internal Revenue
20 Service?
21 A Absolutely not.
22 Q Was it your intention to file his returns and prepare
23 his financial returns in accord with your interpretation 24 of accountable principles? 25 A Yes, it was.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8009 Reffsin-cross/White
1 Q And in accord with your interpretation of the
2 Internal Revenue Code?
3 A Not the Internal Revenue Code. The needs of the
4 offer and compromise agent.
5 Q Did you prepare the documents and act on Mr. Gordon's
6 behalf in accord with your understanding of IRS procedures
7 and the law?
8 A Yes, I did.
9 MR
. WALLENSTEIN: I have no further questions.
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION.
11 BY MR. WHITE:
12 Q Mr. Reffsin, let me see if I understand your
13 testimony. Is it your testimony that if any inaccurate
14 information was provided to the IRS, it wasn't done
15 knowingly by you?
16 A Inaccurate?
17 Q Yes.
18 A There was no inaccurate information prepared provided
19 to the IRS.
20 Q Well, you've heard testimony -- well --
21 THE COURT: Just hold it a minute, Mr. White.
22 You may proceed.
23 BY MR. WHITE: 24 Q Mr. Reffsin, let me show you Government's Exhibit 425 25 in evidence. That's a document that the jury has in their
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8010 Reffsin-cross/White
1 books.
2 Now, that's a letter you sent to Frank Gagliardi
3 of the IRS; is that right?
4 A Yes, it is.
5 Q And that was in response to Mr. Gagliardi's letter
6 where he said he noticed unusual deposits in Mr. Gordon's
7 personal bank account, do you recall that?
8 A Yes, I do.
9 Q One of the things you attached to this letter which
10 is noted in paragraph 1 is a copy of a note that
11 Mr. Gordon signed to Joyce Grossman for $15,000, right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q If you turn the page to 425A, if you take it out of
14 the plastic, 425A is a copy of that note, right?
15 A Yes, it is.
16 Q And you've been present in court and heard testimony
17 that Mr. Gordon's son wasn't even dead on the date that
18 promissory note was executed, right?
19 A This was not presented by me. This was presented by
20 Mr. Gordon.
21 Q Mr. Reffsin, look at 425.
22 Who signed that letter?
23 A I did. 24 Q And it says, it's addressed to Mr. Gagliardi and it 25 says "pursuant to your request I have attached the
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8011 Reffsin-cross/White
1 following information for your file."
2 Do you see that?
3 A Yes.
4 Q So you got that from Mr. Gordon, right?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And, so, you understand, do you not -- withdrawn.
7 You recall that Mrs. Grossman testified she never
8 made this loan and never even saw this note. Do you
9 remember that testimony?
10 A Yes, I do.
11 Q So I want to make sure I understand your testimony.
12 Mr. Gordon gave you that and if this is inaccurate, you
13 are saying you didn't know?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q So if this is completely bogus, Mr. Gordon lied to
16 you; is that your testimony?
17 A That's correct.
18 Q Look at 425B.
19 Mr. Gordon gave you that too, right?
20 A Yes, he did.
21 Q And
if this is bogus then Mr. Gordon lied to you; is
22 that correct?
23 A That's correct. 24 Q Now, you indicated also to the IRS that -- well, you 25 -- let me rephrase my question.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8012 Reffsin-cross/White
1 Is it fair to say that the documents you
2 submitted in connection with the offer and compromise
3 indicated that Mr. Gordon had no ownership interest in
4 Who's Who Worldwide?
5 A Yes.
6 Q And you've heard the Grossmans' testimony at this
7 trial that they did not own 100 percent, they owned merely
8 25 percent. Do you recall that?
9 A Yes, I do.
10 Q So, again, that information is inaccurate, right?
11 A Yes, at this point I know it is inaccurate. Yes.
12 Q And, again, it's your testimony that if that
13 information is inaccurate it is because Mr. Gordon told
14 you inaccurate information; is that right?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q Now, you also indicated that you were aware of the
17 condominium at Hummingbird Road; is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And you were aware, were you not, that Mr. Gordon was
20 living there?
21 A I was aware he used it, yes.
22 Q And you were aware, were you not, that Mr. Gordon
23 claimed that it was for business purposes and not 24 personal, right? 25 A Yes.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8013 Reffsin-cross/White
1 Q And isn't it correct that you told Inspector
2 Biegelman and Agent Jordan that you thought that that
3 claim was "bullshit"?
4 A No, I didn't say that quite like that.
5 Q You didn't say that?
6 A I said it may be bullshit, but I couldn't make that
7 determination at that time.
8 Q But you thought it might be
bullshit?
9 A Yes, he's telling me something. I have to believe
10 what he's telling me at the time he tells it to me.
11 Q But at the time you were talking to them, you didn't
12 believe it. You were thinking it was bullshit, right?
13 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Objection.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 A Well, it's difficult to say because of everything
16 that happened between the time he purchased the
17 condominium and the time we had the discussion. Things
18 changed. And it's possible his position changed in terms
19 of the condominium.
20 Q Tell us what made you think that maybe it was
21 bullshit?
22 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Objection.
23 THE COURT: Overruled. 24 BY MR. WHITE: 25 Q What did you base that on?
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8014 Reffsin-cross/White
1 A I didn't say. I said it may have been bullshit, only
2 time would tell me whether it was or not. The fact of the
3 occurrences that happened in 1993 and the fact that he
4 didn't open up the California office when he said he was
5 going to open up the California office. The fact that he
6 got involved in a legal battle with Reed Elsevier and
7 started to incur all of those expenses and the fact of the
8 bankruptcy, the time-frame was such that it was difficult
9 to know whether he was bullshiting at the time or not
10 bullshiting because how do you bring it into proper
11 perspective?
12 Q Well, you also testified that Mr. Gordon told you
13 that the 235,000 from Dr. Grossman in January of 1993 was
14 a loan to Mr. Gordon from Dr. Grossman; is that right?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q And he told you that -- Mr. Gordon was then applying
17 that to reduce his loan balance; is that correct?
18 A Yes, that's
correct.
19 Q And you did that?
20 A Yes.
21 Q You've also been here for Dr. Grossman's testimony,
22 have you not, where he said he only gave that money back
23 because Mr. Gordon said he needed it for business purposes 24 to print the registry. You heard that, right? 25 A Yes, I heard.
OWEN M. WICKER, RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 8015 Reffsin-cross/White
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
