Most Corrupted Federal Trials - The Who's Who Tragedy

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

3913
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. : February 12, 1998
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 9:22 o'clock a.m.
12 BEFORE:
13 HONORABLE ARTHUR D. SPATT, U.S.D.J and a jury
14 APPEARANCES:
15 For the Government: ZACHARY W. CARTER
16 United States Attorney One Pierrepont Plaza
17 Brooklyn, New York 11201
By: RONALD G. WHITE, ESQ.
18 CECIL SCOTT, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorneys
19 For the Defendants: NORMAN TRABULUS, ESQ.
20 For Bruce W. Gordon
170 Old Country Road, Suite 600
21 Mineola, New York 11501
22 EDWARD P. JENKS, ESQ.
For Who's Who Worldwide
23 Registry, Inc. and
Sterling Who's, Who, Inc.
24 332 Willis Avenue
Mineola, New York 11501
25
(cont'd)

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3914
1 APPEARANCES (cont'd):
2 GARY SCHOER, ESQ. For Tara Garboski
3 6800 Jericho Turnpike
Syosset, New York 11791
4
ALAN M. NELSON, ESQ.
5 For Oral Frank Osman
3000 Marcus Avenue
6 Lake Success, New York 11042

7 WINSTON LEE, ESQ.
For Laura Weitz
8 319 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
9
MARTIN GEDULDIG, ESQ.
10 For Annette Haley
400 South Oyster Bay Road
11 Hicksville, New York 11801
12 JAMES C. NEVILLE, ESQ.
For Scott Michaelson
13 225 Broadway
New York, New York 10007
14
THOMAS F.X. DUNN, ESQ.
15 For ,
150 Nassau Street
16 New York, New York 10038
17 JOHN S. WALLENSTEIN, ESQ.
For Martin Reffsin 18 215 Hilton Avenue
Hempstead, New York 11551
19
20 Court Reporter: HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR
United States District Court
21 Two Uniondale Avenue
Uniondale, New York 11553
22 (516) 485-6558
23
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
24 produced by Computer-Assisted Transcription
25

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3915
1 M O R N I N G S E S S I O N
2

3 (Whereupon, the following takes place in the

4 absence of the jury.

5 THE COURT: The issue is, attack as a recent

6 fabrication. A very interesting evidentiary rule, which I

7 had an opportunity as a lawyer to test in the Appellate

8 Division, so I remember a little bit about it.

9 You were supposed to show me that there was an
10 attack as a recent fabrication, were you not?
11 MR. WHITE: I do, and I have the transcript
12 citations, your Honor.
13 THE COURT: What are the citations?
14 MR. WHITE: First of all, your Honor, in
15 Mr. Trabulus' opening at page 92 of the transcript, he
16 indicates that -- he tells the jury they will hear
17 Ms. Gaspar testify. And he says to listen carefully to
18 what she is asked, and some of the reasons she has to say
19 something different now than what she said before.
20 THE COURT: He said that in his opening
21 statement?
22 MR. WHITE: Yes, on page 92 of the transcript.
23 THE COURT: All right.
24 MR. WHITE: Then, on the cross-examination by
25 Mr. Trabulus of Ms. Gaspar, he made -- he asked a series

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3916
1 of questions suggesting that at the time t hat the agents
2 came to speak to Ms. Gaspar, that they had indicated to

3 her, or that she had thought that her participation was

4 already known to them, in other words, that the agents

5 already found out about her phony logs and, therefore, had

6 the reason to fabricate.

7 Page 1732 he asked her when she first talked to

8 the government.

9 Page 1736, he says, and didn't they tell you that
10 they had spoken to other people, and that the people whose
11 names are on the logs, that told them that they didn't
12 attend those meetings, in other words, that the agents
13 confronted Ms. Gaspar at that point.
14 Page 1739 he says, you knew when they spoke to
15 you that there was a criminal investigation under way.
16 Then on page 1741 he says, they indicated that
17 they knew about the logs. And he said, and then you tell
18 them, yeah, I did it, but they told me -- they told me to
19 do it, right?
20 In other words, he is implying that when they
21 made up the story.
22 THE COURT: Who is "they"?
23 MR. WHITE: In Mr. Trabulus' question the "they"
24 is Mr. Gordon and Mr. Reffsin. On those pages
25 Mr. Trabulus is confronting Ms. Gaspar saying you realized

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3917
1 when the agents confronted you about the evidence, they
2 knew about your participation you felt. And the response

3 was yes, I did it, but they, Gordon and Reffsin, told me

4 to do it.

5 Mr. Trabulus immediately followed it up on page

6 1742, and said that the agents -- he asked Ms. Gaspar, did

7 the agents tell you that they weren't interested in you

8 but your bosses? Again implying at that point she had

9 that motive.
10 On his recross, pages 1874 through 1877 he goes
11 through all of the same themes again that the agents
12 confronted her with her participation, and wasn't it true
13 that the agents knew of the falsification of the logs;
14 didn't it occur to you that the agents might have found
15 out about your logs through talking to other people?
16 So, the clear implication of the questions was
17 that it was only when she was confronted, and it appeared
18 to her that the agents knew about it, that she raised this
19 story.
20 THE COURT: Another problem I am having with
21 this, Mr. White, is whether it is a prior consistent
22 statement in the first place.
23 We know that the law abhors prior consistent
24 statements, and this is probably the only evidentiary rule
25 that permits the use of a prior consistent statement.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3918
1 Now, even assuming you have an attack as a recent
2 fabrication, you must have an unequivocal prior consistent

3 statement.

4 Now, what is the prior consistent statement?

5 MR. WHITE: The statement as recounted by

6 Ms. Benjamin is that several weeks before Ms. Gaspar left

7 the company, Ms. Gaspar comes to her extremely upset and

8 says that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Reffsin have asked her to do

9 certain things that she didn't like to do. When you
10 overlay that with Ms. Gaspar's testimony it is
11 consistent. Ms. Gaspar said she left the company in late
12 1994. She created the logs in late September '94, thus a
13 few weeks, about four weeks before she left.
14 She said Mr. Gordon and Mr. Reffsin told her to
15 do things that she didn't like. That's what she tells
16 Ms. Benjamin.
17 Ms. Gaspar's testimony is that Mr. Gordon and
18 Mr. Reffsin around that time instructed her to do these
19 logs, which were phony, which were a crime.
20 THE COURT: Except she didn't tell Ms. Benjamin,
21 apparently, if I recall her testimony, and I probably have
22 it by now, that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Reffsin told her to lie
23 in the logs.
24 MR. WHITE: Correct. She is not that specific.
25 But I don't think the rule requires that it be that

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3919
1 specific.
2 THE COURT: I think it does. I think that you

3 have to be very careful with this rule.

4 As a matter of fact, the texts on the subject

5 say -- well, they say in effect, be careful about it. I

6 am going to be careful and exclude it.

7 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the jury has already

8 heard it.

9 THE COURT: I know.
10 MR. WHITE: And it --
11 THE COURT: You can keep it in if it was a n
12 admission by the corporation. However, the corporation --
13 is that admissible as to any of the counts in the
14 indictment independent of the recent -- the attack as a
15 recent fabrication?
16 MR. WHITE: No, the corporation is not named in
17 the obstruction county or tax count.
18 May I request this, your Honor? I believe the
19 case law would support it. And over last night and during
20 the lunch break I didn't have the time to do it more
21 exhaustively. Will your Honor give me the opportunity to
22 review it tonight and tomorrow either give you something
23 in written or cite the cases to your Honor before you tell
24 them to not consider it and consider it again if I were to
25 be persuasive?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3920
1 THE COURT: Yes, I will do that.
2 Ready to go?

3 MR. TRABULUS: Judge, may I go to the wash room?

4 THE COURT: Quickly.

5 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I need to talk to Mr. Trabulus

6 about the opportunity to do this, so I will take that up

7 with him at this time.

8 THE COURT: Good thinking.

9
10 (Whereupon, a recess is taken.)
11
12 THE COURT: Some day I will have to tell you
13 about the attack on the recent fabrication case that I
14 had, which is really very interesting, when we have some
15 time.
16 MR. WHITE: If I find it, shall I put it in my
17 paper to you?
18 THE COURT: Yes. It is called Licht, L I C H T,
19 Rule against the City Savings Bank. The same rule
20 applies.
21 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Did the Appellate Division
22 agree with you?
23 THE COURT: Yes, they did. Would I tell you
24 otherwise?
25 MR. WHITE: Did the statement come in or not?

HARRY RAPAPOR T, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3921
1 THE COURT: It didn't come in, but it caused a
2 reversal because it should have come in.

3 MR. WHITE: Then I like the case.

4

5 D E B R A B E N J A M I N ,

6 called as a witness, having been previously

7 duly sworn, was examined and testified as

8 follows:

9
10 THE CLERK: Jury entering.
11 (Whereupon, the jury at this time entered the
12 courtroom.)
13 THE COURT: Good morning, members of the jury.
14 Please be seated. I want to thank you for being
15 so punctual and prompt and proper. I am thinking of
16 another P, but I can't -- perfect. All of you this time.
17 I am sorry to have kept you waiting. I had
18 another matter -- several other matters. In fact, I have
19 not been able to conclude one matter that we had to put
20 over. These are the matters that caused th e delay.
21 Sorry about that.
22 You may proceed.
23 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I have no further
24 questions for Ms. Benjamin.
25 THE COURT: All right. Cross-examination.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3922
1 MR. TRABULUS: Mr. Wallenstein will go first,
2 your Honor.

3

4 CROSS-EXAMINATION

5 BY MR. WALLENSTEIN:

6 Q Good morning, Ms. Benjamin.

7 A Good morning.

8 Q My name is John Wallenstein, and I represent Martin

9 Reffsin.
10 Ms. Benjamin, you worked at Who's Who during what
11 period of time?
12 A From the fall of 1992 until March of '95.
13 Q Do you know Mr. Reffsin?
14 A Yes.
15 Q On how many occasions have you seen Mr. Reffsin at
16 the Who's Who offices in Lake Success?
17 A About once a month, just to the say hello in passing.
18 Q Okay.

19 Would it be fair to say that the extent of your
20 contact with him was you knew who he was, he knew who you
21 were, and you would just have a greeting in the hallway?
22 A Yes.
23 Q All right.
24 In your section of the operation, you had nothing
25 to do with Mr. Reffsin directly; is that right?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3923
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 A That is correct.
2 Q And you knew Mr. Reffsin to be an outside accountant;

3 is that correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q You were aware that he had his own accounting firm

6 and he came in to do the books once a month or so?

7 A Yes.

8 Q And when he came in, he had some interaction with

9 Mr. Gordon; is that correct?
10 A Well, he was in Mr. Gordon's office usually.
11 Q Also with Ms. Gaspar?
12 A Yes.
13 Q How about Liz Sautte r?
14 A On occasion.
15 Q And none with you in your section?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Ms. Konopka and Colletti worked for you?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Is it fair to say neither of them would have a reason
20 to have an interaction with Mr. Reffsin?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q I will have you look in evidence at what is
23 Government's Exhibit 643.
24 You were asked to look at those yesterday.
25 (Handed to the witness.)

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3924
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 A Yes.
2 Q Would you take that out of the plastic, please.

3 What you have there are the usage logs for the

4 Hummingbird condo and the penthouse on East 54th Street,

5 correct?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And you indicated yesterday.

8 That you were not present at any of the meetings

9 where your name appears on the log s; is that right?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q Would it be fair to say that to the best of your
12 knowledge, none of the people who worked for you were
13 there either?
14 A Yes, also.
15 Q And that would be Suzanne and Tracey; is that
16 correct?
17 A Uh-huh.
18 THE COURT: Yes?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am sorry.
20 Q Anyone else who appeared in this log who worked for
21 you?
22 A Maggie Swendseid.
23 Q Do you know whether she was present at any of the
24 meetings where she is alleged to have been?
25 A No. We worked very closely together. She was based

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3925
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 in the Manhattan office, maybe there was an occasion that
2 that you there that I was not aware of, but in general, I

3 would say no.

4 Q Is it a fair statement t hat Mr. Reffsin had no

5 interaction with Ms. Swendseid either?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Do you in fact know whether he even knew who she was

8 or her name?

9 A I wouldn't know that.
10 Q There are some other names appearing in this log,
11 Mr. Gordon's name and Ms. Sautter's name, do you know if
12 Mr. Reffsin new Robert Lamb?
13 A I don't know, possibly from sight, passing him in the
14 company.
15 Q Do you know Mr. Lamb's position in the company?
16 A He was a group leader.
17 Q He was involved in the sales?
18 A Uh-huh.
19 Q Something outside of Mr. Reffsin's area?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And Tara Green was also a group leader?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Do you know who Harold Sims is?
24 A I think Harold was also a group leader at one time.
25 I am not 100 percent sure on that.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

3926
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 Q Okay.
2 Would it be fair to say whoever Harold Sims is or

3 was, he would have had no reason to have any interaction

4 with Mr. Reffsin either?

5 MR. WHITE: Objection to the form of the

6 question, what Mr. Reffsin would know.

7 THE COURT: Can I hear the question,

8 Mr. Reporter?

9 (Whereupon, the court reporter reads the
10 requested material.)
11 THE COURT: Overruled.
12 A I am not 100 percent sure who Harold Sims is, so I
13 wouldn't know if he had reason to have interaction with
14 Mr. Reffsin.
15 Q Do you know if Mr. Sims worked in the financial area
16 or had anything to do with the company's books?
17 A Not that's I am aware of.
18 Q Okay.
19 Can you tell us who Michael Powers is?
20 A He was a group leader.
21 Q Also in the sales area?
22 A Yes.

23 Q And Tom R, do you know who that would be?
24 A Who?
25 Q Tom R.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3927
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 A No.
2 Q Last initial R.

3 A No.

4 Q Gary Kohler?

5 A The computer person, the MIS person.

6 Q You indicated that neither you nor any of the people

7 who worked for you were present at any of the meetings

8 that you are alleged to have attended?

9 A On the --
10 Q On the logs.
11 A Yes.
12 Q And would it be fair to say that Maria Gaspar was
13 present in the office on a day-to-day basis?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And would it be fair to say that she was aware of the
16 responsibility of the people named in these logs?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And would it be fair to say that she was aware of
19 working relationships, and by that I mean she would know

20 who worked together with who?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And would it also be fair to say that she would know
23 what particular areas of the company people would be
24 working together on?
25 A Yes.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3928
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 Q Would it also be fair to say that Mr. Gordon knew
2 everything that was going on in the company?

3 A Yes.

4 MR. TRABULUS: Objection.

5 THE COURT: Overruled.

6 Q He was a hands on CEO?

7 A Very much so.

8 Q A fair statement?

9 A Very much so.
10 Q Would it be fair to say that Mr. Gordon's philosophy
11 of running the company was, it is my company, and I'll do
12 whatever I want. And I don't care what anybody else has
13 to say?
14 MR. TRABULUS: Objection.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 A Would you ask that qu estion again as to philosophy?
17 Q Let me withdraw the question and rephrase it for
18 you.
19 Mr. Gordon ran the company the way Mr. Gordon
20 wanted to run the company, correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q If he asked you for your input and your advice and
23 you gave it to him, sometimes you took it and sometimes
24 you didn't; is that correct?
25 A That is correct.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3929
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 Q If he felt whatever you had to say what something he
2 didn't want to do or wasn't interested in or didn't agree

3 with, he wouldn't do it?

4 A That's correct.

5 Q Even if you were right?

6 A I guess that's correct.

7 Q He in fact had attorneys working for him for the

8 company, correct, from time to time?

9 A Yes.
10 Q Phil Pierce was one of them?
11 A Y es.
12 Q And Mr. Pierce was involved in representing the
13 company for a trademark litigation; is that correct?
14 A I believe that's the nature of the case.
15 Q And you testified yesterday that there came a time
16 when Mr. Pierce gave Mr. Gordon certain advice, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q At the time, would it be a fair statement that
19 Mr. Pierce had been hired by Mr. Gordon in Who's Who for
20 his expertise in the area?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And would it also be a fair statement that at the
23 time Mr. Pierce gave the specific advice, and that had to
24 do with the wording in the letters --
25 A Yes.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3930
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: I didn't hear the end of the

3 question.

4 MR. TRABULUS: I thought she began answer ing it.

5 THE COURT: Did you complete your question?

6 MR. WALLENSTEIN: It is answerable in its present

7 form.

8 THE COURT: Is that your question?

9 MR. WALLENSTEIN: There is a follow up to it, but
10 I will ask that question.
11 THE COURT: Are you objecting to that question?
12 MR. TRABULUS: I am objecting to the question I
13 heard, yes.
14 THE COURT: Let me hear what you heard.
15 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I don't remember what I asked.
16 THE COURT: Mr. Reporter, please.
17 (Whereupon, the court reporter reads the
18 requested material.)
19 THE COURT: Sustained as to form. Strike the
20 answer. The jury is instructed to disregard it.
21 Q Mr. Pierce gave Mr. Gordon certain advice with
22 respect to wording to be used in the communication; is
23 that correct?
24 MR. TRABULUS: Objection. Foundation.
25 THE COURT: I don't recall, but I know you

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3931
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 testified something about this yesterday, but were you
2 present when that occurred?

3 A When --

4 THE COURT: How did Mr. Pierce, the attorney give

5 advice to Mr. Gordon, in what way?

6 THE WITNESS: Just to fax any outgoing letters.

7 THE COURT: You were asked to fax Mr. Pierce a

8 copy of outgoing letters?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 THE COURT: For him to review the letters?
11 THE WITNESS: Exactly.
12 THE COURT: To approve the form and the words,
13 whatever?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 THE COURT: Mr. Pierce had his office outside of
16 Who's Who's offices?
17 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
18 THE COURT: So you faxed these letters. And what
19 happened after that?
20 THE WITNESS: Then he -- I don't reme mber if it
21 was a phone call or refax, but he said that wording had to
22 be changed.
23 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, can we establish who
24 asked that it be faxed to Mr. Pierce?
25 THE COURT: Yes.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3932
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 THE WITNESS: Mr. Pierce. He was at a meeting in
2 the office and asked in the future any copies of letters

3 be faxed for his review.

4 THE COURT: And you did fax these letters?

5 THE WITNESS: Yes.

6 THE COURT: How did they come back to you, by

7 phone call?

8 THE WITNESS: I don't remember offhand if it was

9 by phone call or fax.
10 THE COURT: And Mr. Pierce made certain
11 statements?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 THE COURT: All right.
14 Q In fact, Mr. Pierce instructed you to word the
15 letters in a specific way; is that correct?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q Did you then inform Mr. Gordon of what Mr. Pierce
18 said?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And Mr. Gordon's response was that the attorney is
21 not going to run my business, I will do it my way; is that
22 correct?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Is it fair to say that that statement summed up
25 Mr. Gordon's philosophy of the business? I will do it my

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3933
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 way?
2 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Sustained.

4 Q You testified yesterday that sometime in the Spring

5 of 1994, you had a conversation with Liz Sautter with

6 respect to the logs?

7 A Uh-huh.

8 THE COURT: Yes?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am sorry.
10 Q Can you be more specific, April, May, June?
11 A I am bad with dates. I can re member by season pretty
12 much, but not by dates.
13 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, may we approach?
14 THE COURT: Come on up.
15
16 (Whereupon, at this time the following took place
17 at the sidebar.)
18 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, this was one of the
19 two hearsay objections which I made yesterday which your
20 Honor originally overruled, and then became the subject of
21 our -- my subsequent application after the jury went out.
22 And I thought this was included along with the Gaspar -- I
23 objected to this on the grounds of hearsay.
24 THE COURT: What are you talking about now?
25 MR. TRABULUS: The testimony by Liz Sautter, that

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3934
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 she was asked, or the company was to maintain some kind of
2 a file for the penthouse in Manhattan.

3 The te stimony given by the witness is she recalls

4 this being in the Spring of 1994, although she was

5 terrible with the dates.

6 I objected on hearsay grounds before

7 Ms. Sautter's -- the substance of Ms. Sautter's statements

8 was related to the jury. Your Honor overruled the

9 objection.
10 After the jury left yesterday when I asked your
11 Honor to reconsider the hearsay objections, I included
12 that one as well as the testimony about Gaspar's
13 statement.
14 Once again, your Honor, in the absence of a
15 finding that there was a conspiracy and that it was in
16 furtherance of it, it should not be admissible. It would
17 not be admissible against the corporations, because the
18 logs relate only to the tax counts and obstruction counts
19 which the corporations are charged, your Honor. And it is
20 not admissible against Mr. Gordon.
21 In light of the present state of the record, I
22 would object to a question concerning this conversation.
23 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I think --
24 THE COURT: What is going to happen here? What
25 is the conversation going to reveal?

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3935
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 MR. WHITE: It was already revealed yesterday,
2 that Ms. Sautter --

3 THE COURT: Nothing new is coming out?

4 MR. WHITE: Today?

5 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I don't expect anything new to

6 come out. I expect to explore deeper into what happened.

7 THE COURT: What happened yesterday, refresh my

8 recollection?

9 MR. WHITE: The witness testified that
10 Ms. Sautter, the office manager told Ms. Benjamin that
11 she, Ms. Sautter, was keeping a log as to when people held
12 business meetings in the penthouse. And that if
13 Ms. Benj amin in connection with her duties had meetings
14 there she should advise Ms. Sautter of that.
15 Now, the defendant's theory in cross-examining
16 Ms. Gaspar is that it was Ms. Gaspar's obligation to keep
17 those logs. And Mr. Trabulus' theory is when Ms. Gaspar
18 failed to do that, she on her own without informing Gordon
19 and Reffsin, created the log to cover up the dereliction
20 in her duties.
21 I think it may be admitted eventually as a
22 co-conspirator statement by Ms. Sautter.
23 You will recall that Ms. Sautter is involved in
24 other parts of the tax conspiracy. She is the one who
25 gave Mr. Gordon a supplemental card of her American

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3936
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 Express card assisting him in reporting that to the IRS.
2 Ms. Sautter is the one who told the other employees tha t

3 they have to have a change in ownership, and we know

4 Mr. Gordon lied about the ownership of the company to the

5 IRS and to the bankruptcy court. Ms. Sautter is the one

6 who Dr. Grossman testified is the one who most likely

7 wrote the notes on those phony documents and instructed

8 him to sign them.

9 So, I think at a minimum since the jury already
10 heard it --
11 THE COURT: Tell me again what this witness said
12 that Ms. Sautter said about the matter.
13 MR. WHITE: This witness says that in the Spring
14 of 1994, approximately, Ms. Sautter, who was the office
15 manager, told her, Debra Benjamin, this witness, that she,
16 Liz Sautter was keeping a log of business meetings at the
17 penthouse, and if Ms. Benjamin held such meetings, to tell
18 her, Liz.
19 THE COURT: That's what you are objecting to,
20 that testimony?
21 MR. TRA BULUS: Yes.
22 THE COURT: I am overruling the objection, and I
23 will do it again.
24 I am not quite sure that because the counts
25 involving a specific charge, not to include the

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
3937
Benjamin-cross/Wallenstein

1 corporation, would mean that the testimony of an employee
2 of the corporation would not come in. And I am not sure

3 about that. I am overruling the objection.

With more than 12,000 pages of transcript, many pieces are split into smaller pages,
You can find a full version of Feb 12th transcript here

Remember 911day. Keep our heroes alive by LIVING, DOING more!
Keep our heroes alive by LIVING, DOING more!    Remember 911day.

This site is concerned with the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy, and the double scandal of government and judical corruption in one of the most corrupted federal trials and all the many months of media silence regarding this astonishing story.

Sixteen weeks of oft-explosive testimony, yet not a word in any of 1200 news archives. This alone supports the claim that this was a shamefully corrupt federal trial; in fact, one of the most corrupted federal trials in our time.

Show your support for justice, for exoneration of the innocent, and perhaps most importantly, government accountability, by urgently contacting your Senator, the White House, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Who's Who Tragedy
How Thomas FX Dunn proved himself the scoundrel of bad attorneys

Most Corrupted Federal Trials - The Who's Who Tragedy

Most Corrupted Federal Trials - The Who's Who Tragedy

The Who's Who TragedyHow Thomas FX Dunn proved himself the scoundrel of bad attorneys

Most Corrupted Federal Trials - The Who's Who Tragedy

The Who's Who Tragedy
How Thomas FX Dunn proved himself the scoundrel of bad attorneys