Just try to imagine an attorney asking a jury to find his client guilty.No "ifs, and's, maybe's," or qualifiers. Just, "... And when I come back to this case I will ask you to return a verdict of guilty. Thank you very much."
|"Remember, it is a salesman, a person not in management decisions . He is basically told certain things, and he followed it in a -- way, he believed what he is doing . I ask you to use your common sense, listen to the witnesses, and you determine if the witnesses who were members of Who's Who got what they want. Ask yourself this question:
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.
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!!
Politics WHAT??!!! Dirty Jury? Masters and Millionaires
Let's agree: Any attorney who goes to a jury and asks them to find his client guilty has to indicate something "smelly."
It is inconvevable to many that an attorney would actually ask a jury to find his client guilt.
One good feature of our court system is that there is someone keeping a record,
a record of most everything that occurs in open court, including an "asking."
In this case, the "asking" was indeed recorded, it's in the trial transcript,
yet the judge, who may prove a spectacularly corrupt federal judge,
never said a word, never remonstrated or castigated in any way.
What kind of lawyer asks a jury to find his client guilty?
The Psychology of Shortcuts might dare to say, "a crooked or incompetent attorney."
The Psychology of Longevity might well agree that there is corruption or incompetitence present.
The challenge with THAT is simple: you cannot ask a jury to find your client guilty "by accident," can you?
Hence, an agile mind is going to lean in one of these two directions simply by dint of logic and from experience.
Thus, it does not seem unreasonable to consider Thomas F.X. Dunn among the dirtiest of attorneys in the U.S. of A.
Not that the judge gets off. Judge Spatt was seen, just after the "finish," the putative closure of this particular case,
driving a big vehicle that cost... not merely more than any vehicle that Judge Arthur Spatt had ever purchased in his life,
no, no, it cost more than ALL of the vehicles purchased by Judge Arthur Spatt over his entire lifetime of buying cheap cars.
If the judge can explain this "coincidence," (the Psychology of Shortcuts and Psychology of Longevity don't believe in coincidence),
then some may too-rapidly infer or conclude that Judge Spatt is not among the most corrupt of all federal district court judges, right?
Sadly, there are too many other factors in the Who'w Who Worldwide case that simply smack and smell of odious conduct from the judiciary.
One need not heed the asseverations or suppositions of the Psychology of Shortcuts or the Psychology of Longevity in looking at this dirty case.
One need only read the trial transcripts to see the bizarre nature of what is surely among the dirtiest trials in the history of juridical intervention in U.S. history.
Asking the skinny and asking the fat,
what kind of lawyer is asking for that?
"Guilt" is what he is asking for up here,
thinking he's asking for financial good cheer.
If Dunn is a whore, who keeps asking for more,
why didn't Judge Spatt toss him right out the door?
Asking for guilt, he's actually asking them to find guilt!
This moron should be fired, and made to walk on some stilts.
Asking for guilt, this coprophile beseeched them to find guilt,
his brain must scan up like some truly perverted quilt.
A mix and a match of imbecilic inclinations,
asking has earned him a self-defenestration.
Asking and then asking, it only took once,
it's why Thomas Dunn proves dumb as a dunce.
Or was it intentional, this asking for guilt,
is this how an execrable brain gets built?
Most Disgraceful Trials In Federal Court - Perversions of Justice
How rare it is to find a case that offers literally dozens of serious justifications for reversal of conviction.
The Who's Who case was 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 richest and most powerful publisher in over a hundred countries around the world,
accurately described as one of the most corrupt corporations operating operating on the planet today,
undermined the foundations of American justice in the Who's Who Worldwide case with cash and more.
Examine a trial where less than twenty percent of the proceedings had ANY connection to defendants
That alone has required a separation of trials. In this case, NT 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 hundreds of the most boring hours, all discussion was about Gordon and his actions.
Prosecution witness after prosecution witness exculpated the sales defendants, but,
this same judge who had previously dismissed the case after months of study,
who may have been constitutionally unable to resist pressure from above,
was in fact pressured, and demonstrated a caving in to that pressure.
This pressure came from federal court of appeals above him,
Remember that Reed Elsevier is the most powerful force
in the American arena of jurisprudence today.
This miscarriage of justice can be fixed by granting a new trial
or a Presidential Pardon. Please call 202-456-1414 to lift your voice.
Dirtiest trials of the 20th century - with full news media blackout.
However long you live, please remember the name of Thomas FX Dunn,
perhaps the worst attorney in history, the worst lawyer of all time.
dealing for many weeks with JUST Bruce Gordon's egregiosities;
costing the taxpayer so many bags of money unnecessarily and poorly focused, all in secrecy,
a despicable federal trial repeatedly demonstrated to be seriously and repeatedly flawed,
has to be fairly counted among the dirtiest trials of the 20th century.
Seventy dollar socks, jaunts to Europe, multiple suicides, postal corruption, the worst attorneys in America,
perhaps the worst attorneys of all time,
American political prisoners of corporate corruption, it's all here:
suspiciously expensive vehicle driven by a judge who'd driven cheap cars for fifty years;
evidence disappearing from supposedly secure courthouse evidence rooms,
and let's not leave out Reed Elsevier and their endless supply of cash
for purchasing postal inspectors and pretty much anyone in the judiciary they target. multiple jury tainting,
the largest number of the worst lawyers you have ever seen gathered in a single trial
despite the statistical near-impossibility of such a feat,
where every defense lawyer but one had an eighty percent --
or higher -- loss rate over the preceding five years.
The Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy,
one of the Most Disgraceful Trials In Federal Court amidst a news media blackout