Who can explain the inexplicable?
Not a single rational mind wants to even entertain thoughts of judicial corruption. Failing that, what's left? So you're asked, who can explain the inexplicable?
All prosecution testimony made clear that no access and no knowledge of mail or mailings or letters were ever given to anyone outside of Administratino, especially forbidden to sales staff. Cards mailed in BY THE MEMBERS and prospective members were the one and only item given to sales people.
They sold memberships to Who's Who on the phone, and took credit cards.
The Court ruled that Who's Who Worldwide gave millions of dollars in value to the membership. Where is mail fraud?
Twelve prosecution witness testified in a manner not describable as anything but exculpatory. What a rare case in twenty thousand or more where witness for the prosecution after witness for the prosecution after witness for the prosecution testify in a manner so clearly indicating a defendant's innocence as to justify immediate termination of trial. Yet, not a peep out of a dozen defense attorneys. No motions, no serious objections, week after week after month of testimony. If you ever want to see clear proof of either the largest single gathering of nincompoop rejects from the federal "free attorney" program, or a nebulous arrangement of quietly corrupt lawyers going with the flow for mere thousands of dollars, just read the Who's Who Worlwide Registry trial transcript.
Never in the annals of jurisprudence has an attorney ever been on record soberly asking a jury to find his client guilty. It sure happened in this case. Thomas F. X. Dunn, arguably the worst or dirtiest lawyer of all time, concluded his opening statement to the jury with a dramatic, "And when I return, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I will ask you to find my client guilty. Thank you."
He then sat down without another word. Shock rippled in waves of roaring silence. The jury, pretty excited about the start of this trial, had already settled in a bit, having heard ten opening statements from ten different lawyers. That's not a misprint: ten different lawyers representing ten different clients, all in one trial, where at least two co-defendants charged with eight years of day-to-day conspiracy and fraud met for the first time.
turned to Frank and asked, "Who's attorney is the chubby one?" Frank looked at him and laughed, "Surely you jest." "Why's that funny? He's one of theirs, not ours?"
Laughing for several seconds he said, "He's one of our co-defendants, Boychick." The unreality just added to the certainty that there was no way a federal court would allow this to end unjustly, so the focus was returned to continuing the design of the world's largest and most helpful website in the world.
Must sound crazy, but after hitting a half million unique pages on more than a thousand websites, every tiny detail of color and interactivity crafted very much on purpose, never allowing the computer or programs to make choices. Anything involving a choice had to be done judiciously.
This was weeks before the judge began napping to the point of either prosecution or defense attorneys having to discreetly wake him up. Sometimes it got funny because the clerk sat facing the court audience, leaving him unable to notice what was happening just a few feet behind him. After a while, it becamse almost a rotation, where individual attorneys from either prosecution or defense would take turns waking the very lightly sleeping judge. Ee word "sleeping" is a tad too strong; they were more like mid-shallow naps. At first, his eyes would snap open quickly, but then he got into the habit of resting his head on his hand, appearing very intently alert. The problem with that was, when he woke up, his head would pop straight up, leaving his arm and hand looking like a waiter with an empty tray, since the object of the tray's reason for being was no longer resting on the tray, instead, as mentioned, popping straight up several inches. Let me tell you, it is no easy task to hold it in.
Progressively louder harrumphing was sufficient for more than a fortnight. As the evidence, all related to Gordon and his fiduciary egregiosities, got progessively more boring, throat-clearing wasn't doing the trick. The attorneys were inexplicably in constant fear of the judge finding out that everyone knew he was napping his way through the trial. By the fourth week, the attorney in current rotation for the task, now necessary up to a dozen and more times per day, slapping a book on a table or banging a chair "accidentally" against table became the pon of choice.
By week six it appeared a lost cause. Defendants were whispering their wonderings about suspended trials or mistrials, the attorneys just laughed, scoffing that it was a reality of many courtrooms, not merely because of the aging population of judges, but even more because so many federal trials are packed with boring testimony that can drone on for hours and hours, day after day. Such was this quirky hallmark of the Who's Who trial and tragedy; that the sitting judge was observed to have slept or mentally somnambulated through ten or twenty percent of a long trial, one of the longest federal trials not only of the twentieth century, but in fact, in the longest one percent of all federal trials.
At least two of the "free" federal defense attorneys were assigned out of sympathy for their inability to win a single case. Among the nine defense attorneys, only one of whom was successfully fired - no small task - the win-loss ratios, even offered in the apocrphal conversations lawyers are so attuned to engaging in, was not encouraging. Apparently several of these attorneys by some inexplicable and certainly bizarre coincidence had all lost several major cases in the previous two years. In fact, only two of the whole bunch had even close-to-respectable records, Jenks and Nelson. The problem with Jenks is that he, the only attorney of the whole bunch who approached the meriting of being called a "real attorney," was assigned to a nonexistent entity! That's right. Two of Gordon's many companies that were simultaneously folded on the day of the big raid, were defendants in this trial. Never mind that these defendants had ceased to exist several years earlier with the shuttering of Who's Who.
Jenks was the only one of those many defense counselors, so inaccurately called "lawyers," the only one who got up and argued at least once in a while; the only one who at least tried to put forth a few motions (all denied, another uncharacteristic hallmark of the Who's Who trial that stands out legibly and discretely from so many other issues). Yet he wasn't even representing a real human being, only a couple of long-dead companies that couldn't go to jail or pay fines or stop doing business. Remember, this is the first large company in the history of the United States to be closed in a single day with no forewarning, after eight years of successful operation and more than forty thousand one-time, two-time, three-time, and four-time renewals and upgrades among the membership of seventy-three thousand.
Even when Prescott Bush and his son George H.W. Bush had their companies seized for violations of Trading With The Enemy Act, they at least got massive advance notice in the form of multiple fines totaling nine million dollars (and this was FIFTY YEARS ago).
Yet the Who's Who organization, largest executive membership ever created, even to this day, at that time the one and only membership organization we could find anywhere in the world with a membership directory on what was then state-of-the-art, plastic disks known as CD's, which have since become so ubiquitous in our lives.
What was the purpose of assigning the only reasonably competent attorney among what might be called a lawyer's dozen* of attorneys... to a nonexistent entity? Wouldn't any standard of fairness demand that one of the numerous flibbertigibbets be assigned to the nonentities, leaving real flesh-and-blood humans with even some distant chance of a fair trial?
* -- Baker's dozen you get one extra; lawyer's dozen you get shorted a couple,
but only because of unexpectedly instant contingency exigencies of urgency, you see).