Another example of the newly-wealthy federal judge Arthur Spatt ignoring the testimony of a prosecution witness exonerating defendants. You see, Debra Benjamin: Sr V.P., WWW, left during WWW raid. As manager and later as VP of Communications for the Network Company in Manhattan, she hired a number of former WWW employees. This speaks powerfully to Ms Benjamin's state of mind and belief.
She testified that she was involved in the mailings, the letters that spoke of nominations, and swore under oath that she did not believe she, or the company, or its employees had done anything criminal.
As V.P., she had full personal knowledge of the "smoking" nomination letters, and participated in assuring that no sales staff ever saw, or learned anything about, the nomination letters.
If there was anything criminal in that, would she not have been one of the first people charged? Ms. Benjamin was at the center of everything.
It appears that the govít did not think there was anything wrong with that at that time, or surely they would have charged this
2nd-highest ranking of all employees at WWW. This just goes to show us the conspiratorial
level of thinking of Prosecutor Ron White; Reed Elsevier; and the self-serving career moves of Martin Beigelman.
Q And isn't it correct that during the time you worked
8 at Who's Who Worldwide, you did not believe that you were
9 committing any crime?
10 A Absolutely.
11 Q That's correct?
12 A That's correct.
13 Q Indeed, when agents -- when postal inspectors came
14 you initially spoke to them without any attorney present;
15 is that correct?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q And that's because you felt no crime was done by
18 there; is that correct?
19 A Of course.
20 Q As you sit here
today, you believe that you committed
21 no crime?
22 A Absolutely.
23 Q And you were involved in arranging for mailings with
24 mailing lists; is that
25 A That's correct.
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN how the Senior VP, who was" ...involved in arranging" the nomination letters, this central figure, was never charged, yet sales people, about whom it is universally accepted that they never handled, knew about, or in any way participated in the preparation or mailings of... were convicted by a Court on the basis of allegedly deceptive nomination letters? In fact, Ms Benjamin herself neither broke any law nor believed she had, so the Court convicted salespeople who had nothing to do with the nomination letter deemed so deceptive by the Court. Has rationale evaporated?
Beigelman had been to the WWW and Sterling offices a number of times, even as
recently as just one week before the raid, when WWW filed a complaint against Joe Parks,
a WWW former employee whoíd supposedly stolen a great deal of company information and
member information that he used to start his own Whoís Who.
Never once did Biegelman intimate that WWW was doing anything wrong, or that they should take a look at certain
practices; never once did he tell BG, let alone the employees, that they should stop doing
this, or that.
Worse, Joe Parks, who is yet another former employee, is not even
here in this courtroom, and he was never charged with stealing the WWW member lists,
or other items that he apparently took with him.
Most telling is the fact that he was never arrested as a result of his crimes that got him fired from Who's Who Worldwide in the first place. Can any reasonable mind or nose fail to smell something distinctly intentional in the government's mishandling of this case?
We all already know that Martin Beigelman, the man who spearheaded this multi-year, multi-million dollar investigation,
who got himself a fat promotion out of this deal, has not appeared at this trial. Itís fair
to say that heís not here because the govít knows he would be shown up to be a conniving,
corrupt, very dirty govít employee, and you'd find it woefully difficult to
challenge such a bold statement on my part.
What the jury does NOT know is that
his being stationed in California means nothing. In the first place, The Best Shortcuts Approach
spent huge sums flying members out here, including some from California, including a woman
who cost you and I thousands of dollars just to come testify for about 5 or 10 minutes
that she recvíd a letter with a typographical error, a letter that said, ďASSĒ
instead of Assistant. But the jury never knew that Martin Beigelman was indeed
right in the courthouse. You see, ladies and gentleman, just before this trial
commenced, a series of pre-trial hearings were conducted . You can bet that Martin
Beigelman was here in court every day for THOSE court sessions.... ...but for all those weeks and months of trial and testimony, Beigelman never allowed the jury to weigh his credibility, testimony, nor determine for themselves how utterly for sale was Postal Inspector Martin Beigelman (immediately esconced in a fat private sector payoff -- suddenly bolting his government job after some fifteen years. His failure to testify during those many weeks of trial further proved the axiom that our actions speak so loudly no word need be said.
Worse, the Court allowed this, just as it allowed so many other irregularities, inconsistencies, and improprieties. To score in all three of these undesirable zones is rare enough to compel a superior Court's attention.
This point alone, among so many others, makes a clear argument that the govít bent and broke laws, and violated peopleís rights, all in the interest of this very political, very questionable case that at first appeared to have benefited only two entities: Martin Beigelman, and Reed Elsevier, a company that has successfully put FIVE would-be competitiors OUT OF BUSINESS!! These facts alone should be more than
adequate for a rational Court to find wholeheartedly in favor of the defendants regarding conspiracy and
GOOD FAITH is a full and complete defense to the
charges of mail fraud, and conspiracy.
The trial transcripts speak with unremitting exculpation of the WWW Associate and Senior Associate Directors, yet a jury with employees of the plaintiff (U.S. Postal Service) is not what we call a neutral or unbiased jury. The numerous other jury taintings - Did not serve constitutional imperative.
1 Q And mailings to people who were going to get
2 solicitation letters that said they were nominated; is
3 that correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q And you knew the people's names came from mailing
6 lists; is that correct?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And you knew the solicitation
letter would say
9 "nominated", correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Is it
also correct that none of the solicitation
12 letters ever told any member --
13 Is that correct that none of the solicitation
actually said that the recipent had been
15 nominated by another member of Who's
Who Worldwide? That
16 though always left open another possibility?
To the best of my recollection, yes.