Imbalanced Trials of the Century   - The Who's Who Debacle and Tragedy

See and Believe     Trial Transcript     Poof - Gone!     Managing Directors!     Best & Brightest   
    Politics     WHAT??!!!       Dirty Jury?        Masters and Millionaires      

18 (Whereupon, the jury at this time entered the

19 courtroom.)

20 THE COURT: Please be seated, members of the

21 jury.

22 You may proceed.





3 Q Mr. Tardera, do you remember that Mr. Trabulus asked

4 you some questions on cross-examination about the content

5 of the appellate record?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Do you remember specifically he asked you whether

8 this appellate record contains portions of the testimony

9 which the parties deemed to be important to the appeal?

10 A Yes.

11 Q And do you remember that you answered yes to that

12 question?

13 A Yes.

14 Q And did Who's Who Worldwide in its appeals brief make

15 any reference to Bruce Gordon's testimony that a seminar

16 had taken place in Vietnam sponsored by Who's Who

17 Worldwide?

18 MR. TRABULUS: Objection.

19 THE COURT: Sustained.

20 Q What if any reference was made in the appeals brief

21 to Bruce Gordon's testimony?

22 MR. TRABULUS: Objection.

23 THE COURT: Sustained.
24 MS. SCOTT: Is that to form or substance?
25 THE COURT: Substance.


1 MS. SCOTT: Thank you. No further questions.

2 THE COURT: Anything else?

3 MR. TRABULUS: No, your Honor.

4 THE COURT: You may step down.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

6 (Whereupon, at this time the witness left the

7 witness stand.)

8 THE COURT: Please call your next witness.

9 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government calls

10 Joseph Jordan.

11 THE COURT: Raise your right hand.


13 J O S E P H J O R D A N,

14 called as a witness, having been first

15 duly sworn, was examined and testified

16 as follows:


18 THE COURT: Please be seated. State your full

19 name and spell your last name.

20 THE WITNESS: Joseph Jordan, J O R D A N.

21 THE COURT: You may proceed.






3 Q Can you tell us how you are employed?

4 A I am employed as a Special Agent of the Internal

5 Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division.

6 Q Can you describe to us what the duties of an IRS

7 Special Agent are.

8 A We investigate criminal violations of the income tax

9 laws, the banking laws, the money laundering statutes, and

10 other various federal statutes.

11 THE COURT: Pull the microphone closer, please.


13 Q Can you tell us how long you have been an IRS

14 Special Agent?

15 A Since 1986.

16 Q And are you the agent who headed the investigation of

17 the tax part of this case?

18 A Yes, I was.

19 Q Now, were you on duty on May 17th, 1995?

20 A Yes, I was.

21 Q Can you tell us what yo u were doing on that day?

22 A That day, myself and Inspector Biegelman interviewed

23 Martin Reffsin at his office at 333 Jericho Turnpike on
24 Long Island.
25 Q Can you tell us what happened at that time?


1 A We spoke about various topics. We spoke about

2 Mr. Gordon's relationship with Mr. Reffsin. We spoke

3 about the start up or the genesis of Who's Who. We spoke

4 about the ownership of Who's Who. We spoke about the

5 loans to Mr. Gordon of Who's Who. We spoke about the

6 condominium at Humming Bird Road. We spoke about various

7 corporations that were involved with Who's Who. And we

8 spoke about the financial condition of Who's Who at

9 certain points of time.

10 Q Can you give us an idea approximately how long this

11 interview lasted?

12 A Appro ximately one hour.

13 Q Now, prior to when you began asking Mr. Reffsin some

14 questions, what happened?

15 A We arrived at his offices. We identified ourselves

16 to Mr. Reffsin. And we asked him if he would be willing

17 to speak to us and be interviewed, and he agreed.

18 Q Let's take the topics you mentioned one at a time.

19 What, if anything, did Mr. Reffsin say to you

20 regarding his relationship with Mr. Gordon?

21 A Mr. Reffsin said that he began his relationship with

22 Mr. Gordon in the early 1980's, where Mr. Reffsin was the

23 accountant for a company that Mr. Gordon had which was
24 called Television Media Associates. And that Television
25 Media Associates was an advertising company, and it was a


1 form of a tax shelter.

2 Mr. Reffsin told us he wa s a certified public

3 accountant. Mr. Reffsin told us that he prepared

4 Mr. Gordon's business and personal tax returns since the

5 early 1980's, except for a brief hiatus sometime around

6 1988.

7 Mr. Reffsin told us that Mr. Gordon owed the

8 Internal Revenue Service approximately three million

9 dollars, which was for income taxes and penalties, and

10 that Mr. Gordon was taking loans from the company.

11 Q You said before that Mr. Reffsin said something

12 regarding the creation of Who's Who Worldwide. What did

13 he say about that?

14 A Mr. Reffsin told us a man called Jim Canino first

15 approached Mr. Reffsin, and Canino is C A N I N O; and

16 that Mr. Canino first approached Mr. Reffsin, and

17 Mr. Canino said that he wanted to start a company called

18 Who's Who Worldwide Registry, and that Mr. Canino had

19 first incorporated the name of Who's Who Worldwide

20 Registry.

21 Then at some point in time Mr. Reffsin introduced

22 Mr. Gordon to Mr. Canino and then Mr. Canino is no longer

23 in the picture, and Mr. Gordon was then the owner of Who's
24 Who.
25 Q What did Mr. Reffsin say, if anything regarding the


1 ownership or finances of Who's Who Worldwide?

2 A As far as the finances of Who's Who Worldwide,

3 Mr. Reffsin said that for the first five years of

4 operation Who's Who Worldwide had a total net profit of

5 approximately one million dollars.

6 He told us the various net profits of the company

7 for certain years.

8 Q What did he say with respect to the ownership of

9 Who's Who Worldwide?

10 A With regard to the ownership of Who's Who Worldwide,

11 Mr. Reffsin said that he was told by Mr. Gordon on a few

12 occasions that Mr. Gordon is the owner of Who's Who. And

13 he knows the Grossmans advanced Mr. Gordon $125,000 to

14 start up Who's Who. And approximately two years into the

15 operation of Who's Who, approximately June of 1992,

16 Mr. Gordon tells Mr. Reffsin that the Grossmans own Who's

17 Who Worldwide -- own stock in Who's Who Worldwide and not

18 Mr. Gordon.

19 At some point in time then Mr. Reffsin told us

20 that Mr. Gordon had expressed concerns to Mr. Reffsin.

21 And Mr. Gordon's concerns were that Mr. Gordon had

22 testified at some legal proceeding that he was the owner

23 of 75 percent of the stock of Who's Who Worldwide. And
24 Mr. Gordon was concerned, because Mr. Gordon told
25 Mr. Reffsin that he didn't own 75 percent of Who's Who


1 Worldwide; that the Grossmans did. And Mr. Gordon told

2 Mr. Reffsin that he just got confused on that issue.

3 Q Did Mr. Reffsin say anything to you regarding

4 Mr. Gordon's compensation from Who's Who Worldwide?

5 A Yes. Mr. Reffsin told us for the years 1993, 1994,

6 Mr. Gordon's salary was between 100 and $150,000 a year,

7 and while Mr. Gordon was on this salary he was taking

8 substantial loans from Who's Who Worldwide.

9 Q Did Mr. Reffsin say anything else regarding these

10 loans, about loans to Mr. Gordon?

11 A Yes. Mr. Reffsin had told us that that he had

12 expressed his concerns to Mr. Gordon about these loans,

13 and Mr. Reffsin expressed the concerns that there might be

14 a problem down the road of these loans, because there were

15 little if any repayment on the loans. And Mr. Reffsin
16 said Mr. Gordon's reply to him was, I will deal with it at

17 that time. And Mr. Reffsin did not mention that

18 Mr. Gordon said he was going to repay these loans at any

19 time.

20 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Objection. Move to strike.

21 THE COURT: What portions?

22 MR. WALLENSTEIN: The question is what did

23 Mr. Reffsin say and not what he did not say.
24 THE COURT: Can I hear the question and answer?
25 (Whereupon, the court reporter reads the


1 requested material.)

2 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I move to strike the last

3 portion.

4 THE COURT: Yes. Motion granted. Strike it

5 out. The jury is instructed to disregard the last

6 portion.

7 THE WITNESS: In addition, when Mr. Reffsin was

8 addressing these concerns to Mr. Gordon he was saying that

9 these loans could be considered income, and that's why he

10 felt that there is this problem.

11 Mr. Reffsin also related to us that an employee

12 of Mr. Reffsin's company, a man named Michael Hynes,

13 H Y N E S, who lives in Suffolk County expressed similar

14 concerns to Mr. Reffsin while he was working on the books

15 and records of Who's Who Worldwide.

16 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Objection.

17 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, that's Mr. Reffsin's

18 statement.

19 THE COURT: On what grounds?

20 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Mr. Jordan's statements of what

21 Mr. Reffsin said of what Mr. Hynes said. That's my

22 objection.

23 THE COURT: Overruled.
24 THE WITNESS: I will finish that answer.
25 And he even went as far as giving us Mr. Hynes'


1 address and telephone number.

2 Q Now, what, if anything, did Mr. Reffsin say to you

3 r egarding the condominium at Hummingbird Road in

4 Manhasset?

5 A Mr. Reffsin told us that the condominium in Manhasset

6 was purchased sometime in 1993; that the condominium was

7 purchased for approximately $600,000, and another

8 approximately $400,000 was invested in the condominium for

9 renovations and refurbishing; that the approximate

10 $100,000 that was spent for this condominium was spent by

11 a company called Publishing Ventures, Inc. and that

12 Publishing Ventures received the money to purchase and

13 furnish the condominium from Who's Who Worldwide; that

14 Mr. Gordon moved into the Hummingbird Road condominium in

15 approximately April of 1993; that Mr. Gordon was paying a

16 rent of approximately 2,000 to $2,500 a month. And that

17 Mr. Gordon had told him that the condominium was to be

18 used primarily for business purposes, for business

19 meetings, business conferences, for out of town Who's Who

20 members to stay at when they come into town; and also that

21 Mr. Gordon would be living there.

22 Mr. Reffsin also told us that he thought what

23 Mr. Gordon was telling him about the condominium being
24 used for business purposes was in Mr. Reffsin's words,
25 bullshit.


1 Q Now, did Mr. Reffsin say anything else regarding the

2 payment, or expenditures made in reference to this

3 condominium?

4 A Yes.

5 Mr. Reffsin told us that Mr. Gordon -- I am

6 sorry, that Mr. Reffsin had questioned Mr. Gordon about

7 why were such large amounts of money going to Joyce

8 Grossman, the interior decorator.

9 Mr. Reffsin said that Mr. Gordon's response was

10 that Joyce Grossman is handling many of the payments to

11 the contractors, and that's why she is getting all this

12 money.

13 Q Now, did Mr. Reffsin say anything regarding other

14 corporations besides Who's Who Worldwide that were

15 affiliated with Mr. Gordon?

16 A Yes.

17 He had mentioned a company called Who's Who

18 Executive Club, which Mr. Reffsin told us printed a

19 magazine, and that company was funded by Sterling Who's

20 Who and Who's Who Worldwide; and that Registry Publishing

21 was another company which wasn't really active; that there

22 was Federated Who's Who and Summit Who's Who. He didn't

23 have too much to say about that. And Williams' Who's Who,
24 which really wasn't active.
25 Q During this meeting did you and/or Inspector


1 Biegelman give anything to Mr. Reffsin?

2 A Yes. We g ave him a grand jury subpoena for

3 documents.

4 Q And after this occasion that you just described in

5 May of 1995, did you ever interview Mr. Reffsin again?

6 A Yes.

7 Myself, Inspector Biegelman and another IRS

8 Agent, his name is Kris, with a K, and his last name is

9 Tchorznizki, T C H O R Z N I Z K I.

10 Q Tell us where this interview took place?

11 A This interview took place at another one of

12 Mr. Reffsin's offices, which was at 333 North Broadway,

13 Long Island.

14 Q Tell us what happened when you arrived --

15 THE COURT: What is the date of this interview?

16 MR. WHITE: I am sorry?

17 THE COURT: What is the date of this interview?

18 THE WITNESS: I believe it is January 16th, of

19 1996.

20 MR. WHITE: Sorry if I left that out.

21 Q Can you tell us what happened when you arrived at

22 Mr. Reffsin's office?

23 A We arrived at the offices. And then, you know, we
24 identified ourselves to Mr. Reffsin, and asked him if he
25 would be willing to speak to us regarding Who's Who


1 Worldwide and Mr. Gordon; and he agreed.

2 Q Did you give Mr. Reffsin anything during this

3 meeting?

4 A At the beginning of the interview we gave Mr. Reffsin
5 another grand jury subpoena for documents.

6 Q Can you tell us approximately how long this interview

7 lasted?

8 A It was less than an hour.

9 Q And tell us what subjects were discussed in this

10 interview?

11 A Again, we discussed the ownership of Who's Who

12 Worldwide. We discussed the condominium at Hummingbird

13 Road. We discussed the loans from Who's Who Worldwide to

14 Sterling Who's Who, and to Publishing Ventures, Inc. we

15 discussed the usage logs. We discussed Mr. Gordon's loans

16 from Who's Who Worldwide.

17 Q Let's start with what Mr. Reffsin said with regard to

18 the ownership of Who's Who Worldwide.

19 A Again, Mr. Reffsin told us that in the beginning he

20 was told by Mr. Gordon that Mr. Gordon was the owner of

21 Who's Who; and at some point in time, approximately two

22 years after Who's Who started business, Mr. Gordon told

23 Mr. Reffsin that he didn't own any stock in Who's Who;
24 that the Grossman family owned 20 percent of the stock in
25 Who's Who, and that Joyce Grossman personally owned 80


1 percent of the stock in Who's Who.

2 Q Now, what, if anything, did Mr. Reffsin say regarding

3 the condominium and the usage logs for that condominium?

4 A As far as the c ondominium, Mr. Reffsin told us that

5 he knew that that was Mr. Gordon's residence, and that he

6 didn't know of any other place that Mr. Gordon used for a

7 residence.

8 Q And with respect to the usage logs for the condo,

9 what did he say?

10 A With regard to the usage logs, Mr. Reffsin had told

11 us that he had never seen the usage logs, didn't know what

12 was in the usage logs, didn't know who prepare the usage

13 logs, didn't have any conversations with anyone about the

14 usage logs; didn't know if the usage logs were falsified,

15 and didn't know if in fact anyone falsified the logs.

16 Then at a point later in the interview

17 Mr. Reffsin was again asked about these usage logs.

18 Then Mr. Reffsin told us at a point in time

19 Mr. Gordon had showed Mr. Reffsin the usage logs.

20 Mr. Reffsin then reviewed the usage logs when he

21 was shown them, an d told Mr. Gordon they were totally

22 inaccurate, and didn't show anything to anybody, and

23 instruct Mr. Gordon to have them redone. And Mr. Reffsin24 says he had never seen them after they were redone.
25 Q Now, did Mr. Reffsin say anything regarding the


1 bankruptcy order to keep the logs?

2 A Yes. Mr. Reffsin told us that he and Mr. Gordon were

3 present in court when the attorneys for Reed asked that

4 Who's Who Worldwide be ordered to keep the usage logs; and

5 he said that the judge ordered Who's Who to keep these

6 usage logs.

7 Q What if anything did Mr. Reffsin say regarding

8 Mr. Gordon's loans from the corporation?

9 A He said that the loans Mr. Gordon was taking from the

10 corporation was used to pay Mr. Gordon's personal living

11 expenses, his Am erican Express bill and his expenses for

12 clothing, and that these were charged to Mr. Gordon's loan

13 account.

14 He also said that he had seen or reviewed

15 Mr. Gordon's American Express bills and that they were

16 also charged to Mr. Gordon's loan account.

17 He said there were little if any repayments made

18 by Mr. Gordon on these loans; that there were no notes to

19 evidence the loans; and Who's Who Worldwide did not charge

20 Mr. Gordon any interest for these loans.

21 Q Did Mr. Reffsin say anything regarding loans from

22 Who's Who Worldwide to Sterling or Publishing Ventures?

23 A Yes.
24 Mr. Reffsin had told us that loans were made from
25 Who's Who Worldwide to both Sterling Who's Who and


1 Publishing Ventures sometime in 1993.

2 At first M r. Reffsin said that there were -- that

3 notes were prepared at the time the loans were made. Then

4 Mr. Reffsin shortly thereafter said that the notes were

5 prepared at a subsequent date to the loans being made, but

6 he didn't recall the date. Then Mr. Reffsin told us that

7 he didn't learn of the existence of the notes for these

8 two loans until approximately three or four or a few

9 months prior to the bankruptcy filing of Who's Who.

10 Then Mr. Reffsin told us the first time he knew

11 of the existence of the notes was the night before Who's

12 Who Worldwide filed for bankruptcy. And the reason he

13 knew that is because Mr. Gordon told him at that time.

14 Q Did there come a time you terminated the interview?

15 A Yes. At one point in the interview Inspector

16 Biegelman told Mr. Reffsin that he didn't feel --

17 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor.

18 THE CO URT: Sustained.

19 Q Without telling us what was said to Mr. Reffsin at

20 this point, did Mr. Reffsin say anything else?

21 A Yes.

22 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor. May we

23 approach?
24 THE COURT: All right, come up.


1 (Whereupon, at this time the following took place

2 at the sidebar.)

3 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, based upon the notes

4 of this interview which were prepared not by this witness,

5 but by Inspector Biegelman, but which basically track what

6 this witness has been testifying to, at this point

7 Biegelman told Reffsin that he, Reffsin, was not being

8 truthful, and suggested he retain an attorney.

9 At that point, according to Biegelman, Reffsin
10 said that he will tell everything; that he wanted

11 immunity. He said he had had it before.

12 Biegelman then said to him, only an AUSA could

13 deal with that and he should have his attorney contact the

14 AUSA.

15 Now, although I will be asking for a limiting

16 instruction that his testimony concerning what Reffsin
17 said can't be considered against Gordon. But quite apart

18 from that the prejudicial effect of that coming out is

19 great, and I would ask it be excluded.

20 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I will join in that

21 application.

22 THE COURT: Why shouldn't it be excluded?

23 MR. WHITE: If I understand they are asking it be
24 exclude on 403 grounds.
25 THE COURT: I assume so.


1 MR. WHITE: It is perhaps prejudicial. It is

2 certainly not unfairly prejudicial.

3 In other words, Mr. Reffsin by his request for

4 immunity, I will tell you everything if you give me

5 immunity, is clearly indicating a consciousness of guilt.

6 It is highly probative as to his state of mind. If he

7 doesn't think he did anything wrong, why does he say I

8 will tell you everything if you give me immunity?

9 THE COURT: Because I think that that is unduly

10 prejudicial. It is also part of negotiations. It may or

11 may not mean anything, and it certainly would mean

12 something to the jury. I don't know what this inference

13 is. It could be all kinds of dire consequences which I

14 will not let them speculate.

15 MR. WHITE: Ms. Scott did some research on this.

16 MS. SCOTT: I have some cases supporting our

17 position. One is United States against Levy. I can give

18 you cites.

19 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I can't hear you.

20 THE COURT: I will have to take a look at it.

21 You can't get i nto the case now, unless you have it here

22 now and I can look at it quickly.

23 What does it say?
24 MS. SCOTT: It says in that case a person offered
25 to cooperate, plead guilty and cooperate. He did that


1 spontaneously, not in the context of plea negotiations.

2 And the Court found this was admissible because of the

3 fact that the parties were not involved in plea

4 negotiations at the time. So the rules governing plea

5 negotiations were not in effect. And it was probative --

6 THE COURT: What court is that?

7 MS. SCOTT: The Second Circuit, it is like

8 576 F.2d. I will have to get you the exact cite.

9 THE COURT: I will take a look at it.

10 MR. TRABULUS: In reviewing that, what preceded

11 this was not a voluntary spontaneous desire to cooperate,

12 was Biegelman telling him I think you are lying, you are

13 not being truthful. Get an attorney.

14 We suggest he was about to be charged, and that

15 brings it into the line of plea-type negotiations.

16 MR. WHITE: It doesn't. That's what this case

17 says. If you read it you will know that.

18 THE COURT: I would like to read it and I would

19 like to have defense counsel have an opportunity to read

20 it. So I will not let you go into it just yet. Okay?

21 MR. WHITE: Okay.

22 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I have a problem.

23 Some of what Agent Jordan testified to here
24 didn't actually come out during the meeting in which he
25 says it came out. Some of it was related to Agent Jordan


1 and Mr. White in the course of a proffer session.

2 THE COURT: If that is so why didn 't you object

3 to it?

4 Secondly, you can bring that out on

5 cross-examination and ask it be stricken.

6 MR. WALLENSTEIN: That makes it difficult. It

7 means I have to bring out the proffer sessions on cross

8 and it brings them all out on redirect. It is a kind of

9 back doorway to get into the proffer session.

10 THE COURT: You didn't object. You waived it by

11 not objecting, now I don't know what to do about it.

12 MR. WALLENSTEIN: It is one or two questions, but

13 I think Agent Jordan is confusing one or two sessions.

14 THE COURT: Why not show it to Mr. White during

15 the luncheon recess. I am sure if he agrees with you we

16 will stipulate here to remove some of it in some way.

17 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, because of the danger of

18 that I went through with Agent Jordan literally line by

19 line through the notes of the interviews to make sure that

20 the testimony at trial hewed to those inventories.

21 THE COURT: How do you spell hewed?

22 MR. WHITE: H E W.

23 THE COURT: I would rather you use that word
24 rather than the other word.
25 MR. WHITE: I believe it followed, the testimony


1 followed the interview line by line.

2 THE COURT: Mr. White denies it is from the

3 proffer and it is all from the interview, you can take a

4 look at that. And if you show him it is the proffer and

5 not the interview I am sure he will agree to you to work

6 it out.

7 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I am getting it secondhand

8 because I didn't represent Mr. Reffsin at the time of the

9 proffer, so it is secondhand.

10 THE COURT: You have the notes though.

11 MR. WHITE: Of course, several things were

12 repeated f rom the interview and to the proffer.

13 THE COURT: Yes. But I believe Mr. Wallenstein

14 is alluding to things that only came out on the proffer.

15 MR. WHITE: I don't believe it is so. But if he

16 shows me I will look at it.

17 THE COURT: We will talk about law for a change

18 and then talk about the proffer, two things to look into.

19 MR. TRABULUS: Can we have a limiting instruction

20 and phrased this way, any statement made by Mr. Reffsin to

21 Mr. Jordan cannot be considered against Mr. Gordon.

22 THE COURT: Yes. They are admissions made by

23 Mr. Reffsin.
24 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I thought they were accusations
25 and not admissions.



2 (Whereupon, at this time the following takes

3 place in open court.)

4 THE COURT: Members of the jury, this testimony

5 that you are hearing, if you believe that it occurred, are

6 statements made by Mr. Reffsin. They are not offered

7 against the defendant Gordon. These are statements made

8 by the defendant Martin Reffsin.

9 Go ahead.

10 Q Now, let's leave that interview for a moment.

11 Were you on duty on March 30th, 1995?

12 A Yes, I was.

13 Q Where were you at that time?

14 A Participating in the execution of a search warrant in

15 the offices of Who's Who Worldwide at 1983 Marcus Avenue

16 in Lake Success.

17 Q Did you meet a man named Mr Shortcuts, that day?

18 A Yes, I did.

19 Q How did you meet Mr. Rubin?

20 A Myself and Inspector Biegelman arrested Mr. Rubin.

21 Q Where did you arrest Mr. Rubin?

22 A In front of his house.

23 Q Where was his house?
24 A I believe it was on John Street in Elmont.
25 Q How did you come to travel from Who's Who's offices


1 to Mr. Rubin's home?

2 A Well, that day we had found out that Mr. Rubin no

3 longer worked at Who's Who Worldwide. And we asked Liz

4 Sautter, one of the employs of Who's Who Worldwide if she

5 knew Mr. Rubin's address. And she told us she didn't know

6 the street name or the particular address of the house,

7 but she knew it was in Elmont, and if we drove her there

8 she would point out the street and the house to us, and

9 she did.

10 Q Tell us what happened at Mr. Rubin's home?

11 A Ms. Sautter indicated to us that Mr. Rubin lived

12 upstairs and we went around the side, and knocked on the

13 side door and rang the bell. No one answered. We went

14 around the front of the house and spoke to a woman who

15 identified herself as Mr. Rubin's landlady and she

16 confirmed that Mr. Rubin lived there.

17 Q What happened next?

18 A As we were leaving the landlady's house, Mr. Rubin

19 comes walking up the walkway.

20 At that point Inspector Biegelman and myself

21 identified ourselves to Mr. Rubin. We told him he was

22 under arrest for mail fraud in connection with his

23 employment at the Who's Who Worldwide; and that he didn't
24 have to say anything to us.
25 Q And did Mr. Rubin make any request to you at that


1 time?

2 A Yes. He said that he would like to be allowed to go

3 up to his apartment to get some documents to give to us.

4 We went up to his apartment, and he gave us a

5 small batch of documents, and we left his apartment.

6 Q Now, after you left his apartment did Mr. Rubi n have

7 any other requests for you?

8 A Yes. Mr. Rubin asked that he be allowed to go into

9 the trunk of his car, because he wanted to get some money

10 out of the car. And we agreed.

11 While the trunk of the car was open Mr. Rubin

12 pointed to another batch of documents and said that he

13 wanted us to have these documents. And it was at this

14 point in time that Mr. Rubin said that he wanted to sue

15 Mr. Gordon, because he felt that it was Mr. Gordon's fault

16 that he had gotten arrested.

17 Q And what happened then?

18 A At that point in time we told Mr. Rubin that we were

19 going to handcuff him. And he indicated to us that he had

20 a bad shoulder, so if we can handcuff him in the front.

21 And we agreed.

22 We handcuffed him in the front. We put him in

23 the front seat of my vehicle, seat belted him in. I drove
24 and Inspector Biegelm an was sitting in the front.
25 As soon as we got under way I heard Inspector


1 Biegelman give Mr. Rubin his Miranda warnings.

2 Q What, if anything, did Mr. Rubin say after that?

3 A Mr. Rubin said that he understood his rights and he

4 still wanted to talk to us.

5 Q What did Mr. Rubin say after that?

6 A I heard Mr. Rubin say that he knew that he had lied

7 to customers on the telephone when he was working at Who's

8 Who Worldwide. He said that he lied to customers by

9 telling them that the conference at Hilton Head had taken

10 place, when in fact he knew that the conference had not

11 taken place.

12 He said he lied on the phone to customers

13 regarding how long he had worked at Who's Who. He

14 indicated he worked at Who's Who about a year, but he had

15 told customers he worked there about five years.

16 He also said that he lied on the phone to

17 customers when he told them that they were nominated,

18 because he said that he knew that customers weren't

19 nominated, and that their names came off a mailing list.

20 Q Now, when you were driving in your car where did you

21 go to?

22 A We drove back to 1983 Marcus Avenue; where at that

23 time we transferred Mr. Rubin out of my vehicle and into
24 Inspector Biegelman's vehicle.
25 Q Did you see Mr. Rubin after that on that day?


1 A No, I did not.

2 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, with the exception of the

3 matter we discussed at the bench, I have no further

4 question.

5 THE COURT: Very well. Cross-examination.




9 Q Good afternoon, Agent Jordan.

10 Just a few questions.

11 I think you testified that in one of these -- you

12 testified to two conversations you had with Mr. Reffsin,

13 two meetings?

14 A That's correct.

15 Q And I think you testified in the second one he told

16 you that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Reffsin were present when the

17 judge in the bankruptcy proceeding ordered that logs be

18 maintained?

19 A That's correct.

20 Q Did he also tell you that Maria Gaspar be present

21 when the judge ordered that the logs be maintained?

22 A He did not mention that.

23 Q Before coming here today, Mr. Jordan, did you review
24 notes taken at this meeting by Mr. Biegelman?
25 A Yes, I did.


1 Q You yourself did not take any notes of th e meeting;

2 is that correct?

3 A That is correct.

4 Q And Biegelman took the notes; is that fair to say,

5 sir?

6 A That's correct.

7 Q And was Biegelman the one who did most of the

8 questioning?

9 A That's true, yes.

10 Q And that's true for both meetings, sir?

11 A Yes, that's true.

12 Q And it was Biegelman rather than you who took the

13 notes at the meetings, both meetings?

14 A That's correct.

15 Q And I have not marked this as an exhibit, but do you

16 recognize this as the notes of the interview of

17 Mr. Reffsin in which you and Biegelman and another agent

18 were present on January 19th, 1996?

19 (Handed to the witness.)

20 A Yes, I do.

21 Q These are the notes taken by Biegelman in his

22 handwriting?

23 A Yes.
24 Q And I will direct you to this portion here.
25 Does that refresh your recollection that


1 Mr. Reffsin told you that Gaspar was also present when

2 Judge Jordan -- excuse me, when the bankruptcy judge

3 ordered the logs to be maintained?

4 MR. WHITE: What page are you referring to?


6 A Yes, it does.

7 Q So he didn't just say that he, Mr. Reffsin and

8 Mr. Gordon was present, but he also said Gaspar was

9 present at that point when the logs were ordeFF0000; is that

10 right, sir?

11 A That's correct.

12 Q In that sense your recollection was refreshed by

13 Inspector Biegelman's notes; is that correct?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And is it fair to say in general your recollection of

16 these meetings were substantially refreshed by Inspector

17 Biegelman's notes?

18 A Refreshed by the notes, yes.

19 Q Is it fair to say quite a few things you didn't

20 remember until you saw them in Inspector Biegelman's

21 notes?

22 A There were some things I did not remember, yes.

23 Q And is it fair to say that there was nothing that you
24 did remember that was not in Inspector Biegelman's notes?
25 A That's correct.


1 Q I think you testified that Mr. Reffsin told you that

2 Mr. Gordon lived at 200 Hummingbird?

3 A To the best of my recollection.

4 Q That that's his residence he said?

5 A To the best of my recollection.

6 Q That he didn't know of any other residence?

7 A That's correct.

8 Q And he reached him at night there; is that fair to

9 say?

10 A Yes.

11 Q He didn't say he reached him at night at any

12 penthouse in the City, did he?

13 A No, he did not.

14 Q He didn't say he knew of a penthouse in the City of

15 being another residence, did he?

16 A I don't recall him mentioning that.

17 Q Sir, you said at the first meeting Mr. Reffsin told

18 you it was sometime in June of 1992, I think you said that

19 he learned from Mr. Gordon that the Grossmans were the

20 real owners of Who's Who Worldwide?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q I will show you again -- these are not marked as an

23 exhibit, but do you recognize these as being Inspector
24 Biegelman's notes of the first of the two interviews, the
25 one on May 17th, 1995.


1 (Handed to the witness.)

2 A Yes, I do.

3 Q And I would like to refresh your recollection to the

4 second page of Inspector Biegelman's notes, does this

5 refresh your recollection that Mr. Reffsin told you it was

6 in 1991 that he learned that the Grossmans were the real

7 owners?

8 A No.

9 Can I tell you what my recollection is?

10 Q The question can be answered yes or no.

11 A I can't answer it yes or no.

12 Q Is it correct, sir, that Inspector Biegelman noted it

13 down as 1991 he learned that the Grossmans were the real

14 owners?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Agent Jordan, on December 21st, 1994, did there come

17 a point on that day that you had a meeting with Inspector

18 Biegelman and some representatives Reed Elsevir and their

19 attorneys?

20 A Can you give me the date once more, sir?

21 Q December 21st, 1994.

22 A Yes, I did.

23 Q And that was with Tom Bailey?
24 A I remember Mr. Bailey.
25 Q He was an attorney from Whitman Breed, whatever the


1 name of that firm is?

2 A I believe so.

3 Q And they represented Reed Elsevir?

4 A I believe so.

5 Q Also present was a Mark Seeley?

6 A I don't recall the other gentleman's name, but I

7 recall there was another gentleman there.

8 Q He was actually an employee of Reed Elsevir; is that

9 correct?

10 A I don't know that.

11 Q Was that the first such meeting you ever had with

12 Mr. Bailey?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Was that the last such meeting you ever had with

15 Mr. Bailey?

16 A I believe I had met with Mr. Bailey one more time

17 after that.

18 Q And was Inspector Biegelman also present at that

19 second meeting?

20 A To the best of my recollection, no.

21 Q Do you know whether Inspector Biegelman had any

22 meetings with Mr. Bailey that you we re not present at?

23 A I don't know.
24 Q Did you meet with Mr. Seeley, or we will call him the
25 gentleman with Mr. Bailey at the first meeting? Did you


1 ever meet with him again?

2 THE COURT: You have to slow down, Mr. Trabulus.

3 MR. TRABULUS: Sorry.

4 THE COURT: Do that again.

5 Q The meeting you had with Mr. Bailey and the gentleman

6 from Reed, was that the only meeting you had with that

7 gentleman from Reed?

8 A I don't recall either way the second gentleman being

9 at another meeting.

10 Q Do you know if Inspector Biegelman ever met with that

11 other gentleman?

12 A I don't know.

13 Q Do you know if Inspector Biegelman met with any other

14 attorney aside from Mr. Bailey --

15 A I don't know.

16 Q Do you know if In spector Biegelman met with any other

17 employee of Reed other than that gentleman who was present

18 with Mr. Bailey?

19 A I don't know.

20 Q Now, in meeting with Mr. Bailey, was there any

21 discussion as to the proceedings in bankruptcy against

22 Who's Who Worldwide at the first meeting?

23 A I don't recall that much discussion about the
24 bankruptcy.
25 Q Was there any discussion that just on the very next


1 day Reed was going to be seeking the appointment of a

2 trustee for Who's Who?

3 MR. WHITE: Objection. The whole area is beyond

4 the scope --

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 THE COURT: Beyond what?

7 MR. WHITE: Beyond the scope of the direct.

8 THE COURT: On that ground overruled.

9 MR. WHITE: What was the other ground for which

10 it was sustained?

11 THE COURT: Proceed. I was about to say

12 something but I am not going to.

13 A Can you ask the question again, please?

14 Q I think the question was at the first meeting of

15 Mr. Bailey and the other gentleman, was there any

16 discussion that Reed was about to consider the appointment

17 of a trustee?

18 A I can't recall, sir.

19 Q Was there any discussion made by Mr. Bailey that the

20 postal inspectors seized the mail of Who's Who Worldwide?

21 A Not that I remember.

22 Q Was Mr. Bailey and the gentleman with him, were they

23 urging the postal inspectors to take action against Who's
24 Who Worldwide?
25 A Not that I recall, sir.


1 Q Do you know who set up the meeting, who requested it?

2 A No, I don't.

3 Q Do you know if they requested it as opposed to

4 Inspector Biegelman?

5 A I don't know.

6 Q Did they ask -- withdrawn.

7 At any time during the course of that meeting,

8 was there any discussion with them concerning criminal

9 charges to be brought against Who's Who Worldwide or

10 Mr. Gordon, or anybody else?

11 A Not that I recall.

12 Q Was there any discussion during that meeting

13 concerning whether or not the word -- the use of the word

14 "nominate" by Who's Who Worldwide was appropriate or

15 inappropriate?

16 A I don't recall that.

17 Q Did they gave you documents during that meeting?

18 A I remember receiving either a one or a two-page

19 document with some information about tax issues.

20 Q From Mr. Bailey?

21 A That's correct.

22 Q Tax issues of Mr. Gordon or Who's Who Worldwide?

23 A Of Mr. Gordon.
24 Q Mr. Gordon had material relating to Mr. Gordon's tax
25 issues?


1 A Yes.

2 Q Now, did Mr. Bailey tell you he was involved in any

3 tax issues of Mr. Gordon?

4 A No, he did not.

5 Q Did he explain how he came into possession of

6 materials relating to Mr. Gordon's personal affairs?

7 A Did he explain to me how he got the information? I

8 don't recall if he did. I can tell you what he gave me,

9 what it said.

10 Q I didn't ask you that.

11 Were you present throughout the entire portion of

12 the meeting or did you leave at any time when

13 Mr. Biegelman was speaking to him?

14 A I believe I left for a period to attend to making a

15 telephone call.

16 Q So there was a portion of the meeting that did not

17 concern you; is that fair to say ?

18 A No.

19 Q Do you know if tax issues -- issues other than tax

20 issues discussed with Mr. Bailey and other people?

21 A In my presence or absence?

22 Q Your presence first.

23 A Ask it again.
24 Q When you were there did Mr. Bailey discuss anything
25 other than tax issues?


1 A Not that I can recall.

2 Q Do you know whether when you left, the understanding

3 was that there were going to be other issues that were to

4 be discussed that didn't involve taxes?

5 A I don't have an understanding either way.

6 Q When you left did you understand that there were

7 things to be discussed at that point that you didn't need

8 to be present for?

9 A No. I had to make phone calls.

10 Q The phone calls related to the Who's Who Worldwide

11 investigation you were conducting at that point, or the

12 tax investigation?

13 A No.

14 Q You were involved in the tax aspect of this

15 investigation; is that fair to say?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q And you were not involved in planning out --

18 withdrawn.

19 You were involved only, or at most, as an

20 observer in the so-called mail fraud portion of the

21 investigation; is that correct?

22 A I wouldn't characterize it that way; so I can't

23 answer your question.
24 (Mr. Trabulus confers with Mr. Gordon.)
25 Q During the course of the tax aspect of the


1 investigation, did you have occasion to gather the various

2 tax returns, the filings that had been said to have been

3 made by or on behalf of Mr. Gordon?

4 A You are referrin g to tax returns?

5 Q And the Form 430As?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And you have been here throughout the entire trial,

8 have you not, sir?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And there are some forms 430-A or 433-As in evidence;

11 is that correct, sir?

12 A Yes.

13 Q And they are information collection statements?

14 A Whatever the forms are, yes.

15 Q And we had a couple of them blown up real big; do you

16 recall that?

17 A Yes.

18 Q They had places for necessary living expenses; do you

19 recall that, sir?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And during the course of your investigation did you

22 ever come to look for the instructions that the IRS

23 prepares as to how to prepare collection information
24 statements?
25 A No.


1 Q Did it occur to you, sir, that in interpreting the

2 answers on a collection information statement, that it

3 might be useful to look at the instructions that were

4 given to the person who prepared it?

5 A Ask me the question again, please.

6 Q Did you think in interpreting whether or not a

7 collection information statement was filled out properly,

8 that it might be useful to look at the IRS's own

9 instructions as to what was supposed to be on it?

10 A I didn't find it necessary.

11 Q Agent Jordan I will show you AV,

12 Defendant's Exhibit AV for Identification.

13 (Handed to the witness.)

14 Q Have you ever seen that form before?

15 A No.

16 Q Can you tell by looking at it whether or not it is

17 the IRS's instructions for how to prepare collection

18 information statements as they were in June of 1991?

19 A I could read what it says, but I can't be certain.

20 Q Are you familiar with that little printed logo that

21 appears down there?

22 A I have seen that logo before, yes.

23 Q Is that the logo that the information puts on
24 publications that it makes?
25 A Yes.


1 Q Next to it, is it an indication as to when it was

2 last revised?

3 A Yes, it is.

4 Q And all the way in the lower right-hand corner, is

5 there another date, which is the date that this particular

6 run was printed?

7 A I don't know what the date means, but I see the date.

8 (Mr. Trabulus confers with Mr. White.)

9 Q Do you know, sir, whether a collection information

10 statement is supposed to list all of somebody's expenses

11 or just their reasonable expenses?

12 A It is my understanding that all of your expenses has

1 3 to be listed on there, that you consider --

14 Q Necessary?

15 A -- that you consider a need to spend.

16 Q Do you recall the statements saying necessary living

17 expenses on them, as a heading on them?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And is it your understanding that a person who fills

20 one of them out is supposed to put expenses that are

21 aren't necessary?

22 MR. WHITE: Objection. He is asking what his

23 understanding of a firm is.
24 THE COURT: Just the word "objection is
25 sufficient.


1 Can I hear the question, Mr. Reporter?

2 (Whereupon, the court reporter reads the

3 requested material.)

4 THE COURT: Overruled.

5 A Can I have the question again?

6 Q I will rephrase it to make it clearer.

7 We are talking about the collection info rmation

8 statement, and we all recall without bringing the charts

9 out, that there is a place up here saying necessary living

10 expenses; is that correct?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Under there someone is supposed to list stuff?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Only to list what is necessary?

15 A They are supposed to list all their expenses.

16 Q Isn't the purpose for that to just list what they

17 need to live on?

18 A I don't know what the purpose of the form is, but I

19 know what has to be on it.

20 Q Well, isn't the form used by the IRS to determine --

21 withdrawn.

22 Well, one of the things you were investigating

23 was whether or not Mr. Gordon filed false statements?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And in the form of investigating that you didn't take


1 it upon yourself to look at what the instructions for the

2 forms were; is that correct?

3 A I didn't need to look at the instructions.

4 Q Now, one of the other things that you were

5 investigating in connection with this was the offer in

6 compromise, or the offers in compromise; is that fair to

7 say?

8 A Yes.

9 Q And in doing that did you have occasion to look at

10 the instructions that the IRS prepares for offers and

11 compromise?

12 A No.

13 Q Did you know, sir, that the IRS in giving those

14 instructions tells the person preparing them in

15 considering their own debts, only to include debts which

16 have priority over the IRS's own claim?

17 A I don't know that.

18 Q Did you know, sir, in preparing an offer in

19 compromise, you are not to consider, the person preparing

20 it, calculating what they propose to pay, should not

21 consider amounts they owe on credit cards?

22 A I don't know that either way.

23 Q And, they are not to consider loans that they obtain
24 without pledging assets as security; did you know that, sir?
25 A No, I did not.


1 Q Did you know, sir, if a collection information

2 statement was prepared for purposes of an offer, preparing

3 an offer in compromise, there is no reason to put on it

4 credit card loans, or loans that are not a pledge in

5 assets for security?

6 A I don't know that.

7 Q Again, you did not look at the reasons for the

8 preparation of an offer in compromise; is that correct?

9 A That's correct.

10 (Mr. Trabulus confers with Mr. Wallenstein.)

11 Q With regard to the collection information statement,

12 do you know whether a person who fi lls one out is supposed

13 to include non-recurring medical expenses as an expense?

14 A If you show me the form.

15 Q The form or the instructions?

16 A The form.

17 Q Would you like to see the instructions, too?

18 A No.

19 THE COURT: Why don't you show it to him when we

20 return from lunch.

21 MR. TRABULUS: Sure.

22 THE COURT: Members of the jury, we will recess

23 at 1:30 from lunch. Please do not discuss the case among
24 yourselves or anyone else, until the end of the trial when
25 you are in the jury room deliberating.


1 Keep an open mind. Come to no conclusions. We

2 will recess until 1:30.

3 Have a good lunch.

4 (At this time the jury leaves the courtroom.)

5 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, before you leave, may we

6 speak to you, please?


>8 MR. WHITE: I don't want to encroach on anyone's

9 lunch hour, but the issue about the immunity, can we get

10 to it maybe five minutes before?

11 THE COURT: 25 after 1:00.

12 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, may I hand up the case?

13 THE COURT: Yes, bring it up, please.

14 (Handed to the witness.)

15 MS. SCOTT: I will refer you in Levy to page 900,

16 and in Biaggi to page 690.

17 THE COURT: There are two cases in here?

18 MS. SCOTT: That's correct. Biaggi, only a part

19 of the case had been copied for you. It is a large case.

20 THE COURT: 690?

21 MS. SCOTT: Yes.

22 THE COURT: Very well.

23 MS. SCOTT: I made a mark on there, and I will be
24 prepared to argue it when we come back.
25 (Luncheon Recess.)


1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N.

2 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, I will be doing the

3 argument.

4 THE COURT: Which one are we taking up now, the

5 last issue?

6 MS. SCOTT: Yes, the argument about the immunity.

7 THE COURT: Have you had an opportunity,

8 Mr. Wallenstein, to look at those cases?

9 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I haven't had a chance to

10 Shepardize it but I've had a chance to read it, Your

11 Honor.

12 THE COURT: What do you think?

13 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Judge, it's my position that

14 this case is easily distinguishable and does not --

15 THE COURT: When you say "this case," what do you

16 mean?

17 MR. WALLENSTEIN: United States v. Levy, 578 F.2d

18 896, and that's the case that Ms. Scott handed me before

19 lunch. The case upon which the government relies for the

20 proposition that Mr. Reffsin's testimony, that

21 Mr. Jordan's te stimony can be that Mr. Reffsin said I'll

22 tell you everything if you give me immunity. I think that

23 on its face this case does not stand for the proposition
24 that that testimony is admissible and that it is
25 distinguishable for a lot of reasons.


1 Number one, Levy is a drug case. Number two,

2 Levy apparently, the way I read this case, Levy had had

3 some prior brushes with the law with respect to drugs and

4 was aware of the DEA's posture with respect to cooperators

5 and, number three, at the time that Levy allegedly made

6 the statement that I will cooperate with you, he was in

7 fact under arrest and had in fact at that point made three

8 prior statements to agents or to an Assistant United

9 States Attorney.

10 THE COURT: So you think the fact that he was

11 under arrest helps your case?

12 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Well, I think the fact that

13 Levy was under arrest at that point in time.

14 THE COURT: I mean Levy was under arrest, if he

15 was under arrest, that helps you, you say?

16 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I don't know if it helps me or

17 hurts me. I think it is distinguishable and it makes the

18 facts of Levy substantially different from the facts we

19 have here.

20 The Second Circuit says that Levy's offer, having

21 been under arrest and having made three prior statements

22 now amounts to a consciousness of guilt and therefore they

23 allow it in.
24 The statement that, as I understand the notes
25 from Inspector Biegelman, and the proffer, the offer of


1 testimony from the government here, they want to elicit

2 from Agent Jordan that at the January meeting in

3 Mr. Reffsin's office at a time he clearly was not under

4 arrest, that Biegelman told him at that point in time

5 you're lying to us, get yourself a lawyer, and at that

6 point Reffsin allegedly said I'll tell you what you want

7 to know but I want immunity.

8 I don't think that that is consciousness of

9 guilt. Immunity has a specific meaning to us as

10 practitioners, it doesn't necessarily have the same

11 meaning to a layperson. It's a term that is heard, it's a

12 term that is thrown about. It is in the news a lot these

13 days with the President and Monica Lewinski and all of

14 that stuff but it is not necessarily a term that

15 laypersons will understand as we understand it and I don't

16 think that Mr. Reffsin saying I want immunity if you want

17 me to talk to you is the same as sitting down with an

18 attor ney or myself or Mr. Dowling, my predecessor, or

19 anybody else sitting across of the table from Mr. White or

20 Ms. Scott "if you give me immunity I'll tender my client

21 to you. "

22 That's a whole lot different than a layperson in

23 his office being intimidated by Marty Biegelman saying
24 I'll not talk to you unless I get immunity. That's a real
25 difference and I think under the circumstances it is not


1 consciousness of guilt. It may very well be an invocation

2 of the right to counsel and is not consciousness of guilt

3 and should not be admitted for that purpose and that's the

4 only purpose to admit it.

5 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, may I add a couple

6 points since I objected there would be a tremendous

7 spillover with respect to Mr. Gordon.

8 His offer to -- there was already testimony in

9 the case that he had confessed to purchasing heroin and

10 agreeing to sell it. It's a rather different type

11 situation. There was plenty of other evidence of

12 consciousness of guilt, but also there is another critical

13 distinction which appears at page 901. The Second Circuit

14 said, referring to his offer to cooperate, "here we deal

15 with admissions made not during the course of formal plea

16 bargaining but as part of an apparent effort by the

17 defendant to help himself," and now I emphasis "without

18 pausing to request any consideration whatsoever from the

19 prosecutor for his cooperation."

20 That's just the opposite.

21 THE COURT: Where do you see this now?

22 MR. TRABULUS: This is at page 901, the first

23 paragraph. The first paragraph after the quoted matter,
24 Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: I see it.


1 MR. TRABULUS: Then they go on to say "plea

2 bargaining implies to have plead guilty upon condition.

3 The offer by the defendant must in some way express the

4 hope that a concession to reduce the punishment will come

5 to pass."

6 THE COURT: Where do you see that?

7 MR. TRABULUS: That's --

8 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Last complete paragraph.

9 MR. TRABULUS: The last complete paragraph on

10 that page, Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Just one minute now. I see it.

12 MR. TRABULUS: What I'm getting at, Your Honor,

13 if Mr. Jordan's anticipated testimony on this is to be

14 accepted or Mr. Biegelman's notes is to be accepted, this

15 was not an unconditional offer to cooperate but a

16 conditional offer, I'll tell you more or I'll tell you

17 what you want to hear or something like that if you give

18 me immunity, whether he meant use or transactional

19 immunity, it's not clear.

20 But it's certainly in the nature of a plea

21 bargain even if there were no formal charges against him

22 at that particular point. And clearly at that point with

23 him having been sworn to twice with Agent Biegelman
24 telling him I think you're lying, better get an attorney,
25 he's certainly on notice, he's likely to be a target or is


1 a target. I think that distinguishes this from the Levy

2 case completely, Your Honor.

3 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, there was no offer to do

4 anything -- I mean, the only thing that was offered was to

5 give information. There is no offer to plead guilty on

6 the part of Mr. Reffsin. He wants an assurance that if he

7 says everything he knows he will not take any responsible

8 for any criminal activity. So this is not the same as a

9 plea negotiation to the degree that Rule 11 should cover

10 it or guard it from being revealed to the jury. It is his

11 first thought when he was challenged by Inspector

12 Biegelman about the truth of what he was saying to the

13 inspectors. The first thing that comes into his head is

14 that he needs to be protected from criminal prosecution

15 and he certainly doesn't offer to take any

16 responsibility. He just offers to say what he knows, just

17 to tell the truth.

18 THE COURT: Does -- is the proffered testimony to

19 the effect if he says something will he get immunity?

20 MS. SCOTT: Yes --

21 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, to be precise. The

22 proffered testimony is that after Inspector Biegelman told

23 him that he was lying and he should get an att orney or
24 that Inspector Biegelman thought he was being untruthful
25 and should get an attorney, Mr. Reffsin said I'll tell you


1 everything if you give me immunity. I've done that

2 before.

3 It's an apparent reference to the fact that

4 previously Mr. Reffsin received immunity from our office

5 and testified in a grand jury in connection with another

6 case.

7 THE COURT: Well, first of all, I would

8 appreciate it, Mr. White, if you allow the lawyer who is

9 presenting it to conclude her presentation. She was doing

10 very well and it's disturbing that two lawyers get into

11 this act at one time. I think one at a time is

12 sufficient.

13 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I was more

14 familiar with the testimony because I was presenting the

15 witness.

16 MS. SCOTT: That's fine, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Do you want to add anything to that?

18 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, I would point your

19 attention to language in Biaggi where the Court relies in

20 Wigmore, quotes a whole paragraph from Wigmore, that the

21 proposition is that it's the defendant's whole conduct

22 which is relevant in determining his state of mind.

23 Whether or not that whole conduct showed consciousness of
24 innocence or consciousness of guilt, all of the conduct
25 should come in to show his knowledge. And that, and in


1 addition, that this defendant, Mr. Reffsin, is not

2 distinguishable from Levy on the grounds that have been

3 cited by Mr. Wallenstein or by Mr. Trabulus. First of

4 all, as Mr. White has just told Your Honor the proffered

5 testimony would show that Mr. Reffsin had already entered

6 into an immunity agreement in this very courthouse and

7 knew about immunity and knew it could protect him and was

8 drawing on that experience in making this spontaneous

9 offer which again I submit is a clear indication of his

10 consciousness of guilt. He came right out and offered

11 this without even being asked for it.

12 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Judge, I have another problem

13 here. They are offering his request for immunity in this

14 case to indicate consciousness of guilt and they want to

15 back it up with his statement that he had received

16 immunity in the past which implies, of course, that he was

17 guilty of past criminal conduct. Not only is that not the

18 case, he was never charged with anything. There's never

19 been any indication that there was any past criminal

20 conduct.

21 He testifie d as a government witness in the

22 Evangelista case and that's where he got immunity but he

23 was never charged with any conduct there and no one said
24 he committed any crimes in the contention of that case.
25 But the implication of this statement is that without


1 anything more specific, that he had previously been guilty

2 of a commission of a crime or crimes and had previous

3 times invoked his request for immunity in order to avoid

4 being prosecuted at a prior time and that is certainly

5 prejudicial and not based on fact.

6 MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, I will not present that

7 evidence. I offer it only to show Your Honor this

8 defendant is the same as Mr. Levy, certainly in that

9 respect, that he had experience with the law and he knew

10 about immunity. It's not an unc ounselled offer.

11 MR. WALLENSTEIN: The only way they can offer

12 that he knew about the law and was aware what immunity

13 meant is to establish that he had received it in the past

14 by his own admission and that's the unduly prejudicial

15 part.

16 THE COURT: Okay. I heard the argument.

17 First of all, I like the quotation in Wigmore on

18 Evidence. I wonder when this was written. I think it was

19 before the criminal rules, the rules, the Federal Rules of

20 Evidence came into being, so I don't know how pertinent

21 that would be.

22 If I were writing an opinion like U.S. v. Biaggi

23 which is just a reverse of this situation where the
24 defendant wanted to put in the evidence that "I'll tell
25 you anything you want, I have nothing to hide." That's a


1 little bit different, and with all do respect to Dean

2 Wigmore it doesn't involve the Federal Rules and the more

3 recent decisions which is Levy.

4 Levy is probably the only case we've been able to

5 find in the Second Circuit on this subject and I have a

6 problem with the admissibility of this evidence based on

7 Levy. As Mr. Trabulus brought out, the problem is the

8 quid pro quo which reduces the spontaneous evidence of

9 guilt or consciousness of guilt.

10 Here's what the Court said in Levy. There was

11 testimony concerning offers by Levy to cooperate in the

12 future. Agents White, etcetera, each testified that Levy

13 had offered to cooperate with the DEA in future

14 investigations. We think that such an offer evidences a

15 consciousness of guilt and is relevant to prove the charge

16 against Levy.

17 Then they discuss Rule 11(e)(6) which is not

18 applicable, strictly applicable, and then there are two

19 further statements that condition the Levy case in a

20 manner in which in my view precludes this evidence as

21 Mr. Trabulus brought out: "Here we deal with admissions

22 made not during the course of formal plea bargaining but

23 as part of an apparent effort by the defendant to help
24 himself without pausing to request any consideration
25 whatever from the prosecutor for his cooperation."


1 And then further down in the opinion, "no fault

2 can be found with allowing in evidence his volunteered

3 desire to cooperate in the future since it was evidence of

4 his consciousness that he was in serious difficulty with

5 the law and needed to do something to extricate himself.

6 We glean nothing from Levy's various conversation s that is

7 fairly discernible as an offer of a bargain nor were the

8 admissions that were made concurrently made with the offer

9 immunized from use since there is no offer to plead guilty

10 on condition that the charges or the possibility of

11 maximum punishment would be reduced."

12 That's not entirely clear and when it's not

13 entirely clear and it's an odd subject that I could find

14 very little on, I am careful, very careful. And here it

15 indicates that this is consciousness of guilt because it

16 came out without any deals in mind, without anything. He

17 said "I'm going to tell you all." Here there was a more

18 calculated, allegedly, a more calculated statement "give

19 me immunity and I'll talk to you." Now, that comes closer

20 to Rule 11(e). He's negotiating. And I'm not prepared to

21 extend the Levy rule to that kind of testimony which by

22 the g overnment's own admission is what was said "give me

23 immunity."
24 Therefore I'm precluding the testimony.
25 What else do we have?


1 Anything else?

2 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I think that's all in that

3 subject.

4 THE COURT: Okay. Let's bring in your jury. On

5 your second point you're in better shape, I mean Mr. White

6 is, that's the plea by Mr. -- By the deceased defendant.

7 MR. WHITE: Okay.

8 THE COURT: That one I think you're right.

9 MR. WHITE: I hope so.

10 THE COURT: Well, one out of two is better than

11 nothing, Mr. White.

12 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, we'd like to address

13 that at some point.

14 THE COURT: I'll give you an opportunity. You

15 might want to talk me out of that one also.

16 MR. WHITE: Then I'll be batting zero .

17 THE COURT: Pardon?

18 MR. WHITE: Then I'll be batting zero.

19 THE COURT: Then you'll be batting zero. That's

20 right.

21 Is there -- there's a column for government,

22 there's a column for defendant, is there a column for

23 justice? What is the batting average of that column? I'm
24 just talking, you know, academically, that's all.





5 J O H N E. T A R D E R A................... 7052
DIRECT EXAMINATION................................... 7052
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION.................................... 7069
CROSS-EXAMINATION.................................... 7087
7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION................................. 7090

8 J O S E P H J O R D A N........................ 7091
DIRECT EXAMINATION................................... 7092
9 CROSS-EXAMINATION.................................... 7114
CROSS-EXAMINATION.................................... 7144
10 CROSS-EXAMINATION.................................... 7153
CROSS-EXAMINATION.................................... 7164
11 CROSS-EXAMINATION.................................... 7182
CROSS-EXAMINATION.................................... 7210
12 REDIRECT EXAMINATION................................. 7229
RECROSS-EXAMINATION.................................. 7240
13 RE CROSS EXAMINATION.................................. 7247
RECROSS-EXAMINATION.................................. 7254
14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION................................. 7256
RECROSS-EXAMINATION.................................. 7257
15 RECROSS-EXAMINATION.................................. 7257


18 Government's Exhibit 1613 received in evidence....... 7043
Government's Exhibit 1614 received in evidence....... 7061
19 Government's Exhibit 811 received in evidence........ 7064

20 Defendant's Exhibit AU marked for ID................. 7082
Defendant's Exhibit AW received in evidence.......... 7169
21 Defendant's Exhibit AZ received in evidence.......... 7170
Defendant's Exhibit DA received in evidence.......... 7173



Built by Text2Html Corporate sponsors buy over a cup of food for your clicks.                                 Nice... saving a life with clicks!         Shapelinks Way Of Life Help TheHungerSite Button
  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 Debacle and Tragedy, and the double scandal of government and judicial corruption in one of the Imbalanced Trials of the Century and the concomitant news media blackout 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 truly corrupt federal trial; in fact, one of the most shamefully corrupt federal trials.

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 Debacle and Tragedy
Thomas FX Dunn proving again that he may well be the Worst Federal Lawyer In America

Imbalanced Trials of the Century   - The Who's Who Debacle and Tragedy

The Who's Who Worldwide Registry Ridiculous Trial, lasting several months, at a staggering cost to the taxpayer,
all in secrecy, proved to be an egregiously dirty trial, among the dirtiest trials of the 20th century.
Governmental postal corruption, worst attorneys in America, worst lawyers in America,
American political prisoners of Reed Elsevier, largest media corporation, greediest and perhaps most corrupt multinational corporation...
it's all here.     The Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy,
one of the Dirtiest Trials of the 20th Century amidst a news media blackout

Dirtiest Trials of the 20th 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.

Dirtiest trials of the 20th Century || Worst Attorneys In America Thomas FX Dunn included