Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst
The Who's Who Worldwide Registry Tragedy

Click for Sampling of Members - WoW!!     What a list!       Strictly Politics      Judge?      Incredible list of alleged victims

Tiny sampling of Managing Directors     Cross Benjamin    Cross Springer     Direct Quote         Con THESE People?!!

Million-dollar con man testifying to stay out of prison        America's Best & Brightest       Main Page       Dirty Jury?

                                                          Masters and Millionaires

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 Mr Shortcut,
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 Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst.





Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst   - The Who's Who Worldwide Registry Tragedy

The Who's Who Worldwide Tragedy has to count as being among the Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst.
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.

Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst   - The Who's Who Worldwide Registry 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 Systemic Corruption Examples At Its Worst and the concomitant news media blackout 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 genuinely dirty trial; in fact, one of the dirtiest trials of the most recent century.

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 Worldwide Registry Tragedy
How Thomas FX Dunn demonstrated himself to be the Dumbest Lawyer In The Nation
Dirtiest Trials Of The Most Recent Century


Dirtiest Trials of the Most Recent Century - Miscarriages of Justice

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.