He was repeatedly present during pre-trial hearings, where rules of evidence are far more relaxed than during a trial itself. He appeared at these pre-trial hearings, repeatedly perjured himself... then simply disappeared. the government claimed he was 'on assignment' too far away to be called for trial. Weeks and weeks and more weeks of trial came and went, with no Beigelman.

Not for the first or only time in the Who's Who Worldwide Registry trial, we observe the appearance of impropriety or worse:
The Court claimed as its basis for convicting one obviously innocent defendant, Rubin -- innocent based not only on evidence, as well by the exculpating testimony of every prosecution witness who was questioned about Mr. Rubin -- a confession allegedly given to Inspector Beigelman... although Beigelman never appeared at trial!! The witness, an IRS agent, claimed that he'd "overheard" Mr. Rubin confessing guilt to Beigelman.

No, there was no signed confession, or even a signed statement, no Miranda acknowledgement (or refusal), no recordings or signed statements; no, not even typed or handwritten notes that every good law enforcement agent is trained to maintain.

This IRS agent, offering the only evidence or testimony against Rubin... swore under oath that he remembered the confession verbatim, from years earlier. Still, the Court accepted Beigelman's non-appearance in the case, and believed this lone dissenting prosecution witness, NOT believing all the other prosecution witnesses regarding Rubin, convicting Rubin on this one undocumented, highly suspicious third-party claim alone. This can hardly sustain Judge Arthur Spatt's reputation in a positive way, calling into question either his competence or his willingness to be swayed by factors outside the courtroom.