"Did this organization actually deceive, people who were of a higher -- who were high up in industry? Are the leaders of this country, and of major businesses in the world, people with big jobs that are successful in their everyday lives, were they misled by Who's Who, or did they get what they want? Are these the types of people who could be easily deceived? Does that make any sense to you? You know, ladies and gentlemen, you hear things about presumption of innocence and burden of proof . I just ask that you give it a lot of thought . These are principles that we all have.
If we put a blanket over Mr. Rubin, and you didn't see his face, and didn't see his hands, he could be anybody. He could be me, he could be you, he could be your spouse, he could be your child . But he would be protected by the principles of law that make this country great, and they are for all of us. I will ask you to listen to the evidence, follow the law . And when I come back to this case I will ask you to return a verdict of guilty. Thank you very much."
|
|
NOTE: Postal Inspector Biegelman, who initiated and supervised a multi-year, multi-million dollar investigation into Who's Who Worldwide, while in the pay of Reed Elsevier (WWW Registry's number one competitor), allegedly invested thousands of hours of his time investigating and running this case...... ... and did indeed appear at the pre-trial hearings, yet became suddenly "unavailable for trial" on the very eve of trial... ...
and although the trial lasted for several months, Agent Beigelman never once came near the courtroom, missing in action at the Court's leisure.
Does something smell fishy here to you?
This is the same judge who, having examined this case carefully for many days, nights, weeks, and even months, dismissed this paradigm of calumny, only to utterly reverse his own opinion after thousands of pages of EXCULPATORY TESTIMONY and EVIDENCE!!
Are all judges unaccountable? Come, come, this is America, where the judiciary is almost totallly exempt from licit examination or accountability.
For doubting Thomases, this is the judge who, when a sitting juror, nervous, and clearly shaking with fear, entered a courtroom alone of the jurors to testify on the stand that "there are people in there who are putting pressure on us," and "...people who are making decisions for..." only to be interrupted repeatedly by the judge, who glared and waved his arms, yelling, "Ah! Ah! I don't want to hear it!!"
When another juror claimed that her Mercedes Benz had been hit and damaged in the courthouse parking lot by a Mercedes Benz owned by a female defendant, and it was made clear that the other jurors were being harangued about this by that Mercedes-owning juror, the judge did nothing, and did not excuse the juror.
Only after days of the juror complaining, and writing notes to the court about submitting bills and claims, did the outrageous nature of conduct earn her a dismissal, having thoroughly tainted the jury, and convincing them that all of the defendants must be rich, and guilty.
Even when the judge learned that SEVERAL jurors left the courtroom after verdict in tears, mouthing apologies to defendants and defense attorneys, he did nothing to correct this miscarriage of justice.
As hard as this may be to believe, it's true: The US Postal Service, being the de facto complainant in this case, successfully placed their own employees on the jury, and neither the judge, nor defense attorneys did anything to prevent this, despite the repeated and vociferous objections of the defendants.
How could any conscientious judge allow this? Well, it might be revealing that the sitting judge was reported to "suddenly" have possession, at the very conclusion of this case, of a vehicle that did not merely cost more money than any vehicle that the judge has owned in the past fifty years, rather, which cost more than EVERY VEHICLE he has ever owned...ALL ADDED UP TOGETHER!!
In a trial where, statistically, 99.4% of the transcripts and records all related to the publisher of Who's Who Worldwide Registry and his various companies, and NOT EVEN ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT related to each additional, lower-level employee, the judge still refused to separate the defendants or grant individual trials. As was the norm in this case, the defense attorneys, employed by, and paid for by the federal government, did little to address these and so many other issues, smiling their way through a multitude of absurd judicial decisions that were distinctly against the interests of their clients, never once appealing to a higher court to intercede in this utter suspension of constitutional imperatives.
The Members Transcript Managing Directors! Best & Brightest
Politics WHAT?! Dirty Jury? Masters & Millionaires
|
