Dirtiest Trials of the Twentieth Century
The Who's Who Worldwide Registry Tragedy   ||   Crushed by Reed Elsevier Corporate Gangsterism



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 you
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 correct?
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 Highway Of Natural Ways
govít has 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 mail fraud.

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 -- withdrawn.
13 Is that correct that none of the solicitation
14 letters 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?
17 A To the best of my recollection, yes.


See the numbers yourself         Strictly Politics        Judge?         The Basics

Astonishing list of alleged victims             Tiny sampling of Managing Directors     

Cross Benjamin      Cross Springer       Direct Quote     Dirty Jury?

Million-dollar con man testifying to stay out of prison

America's Best & Brightest    Main Page       Con THESE People?!!      

     More comment    Censored      Masters and Millionaires

Meanwhile, you can feed people NOW just clicking the food button. Corporate Sponsors pay for a cup of food! FREE!

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

Dirtiest Trials of the Twentieth Century   - The Who's Who Worldwide Registry Tragedy

When Reed Elsevier engaged in corporate gangsterism, using bribery and worse to crush Who's Who Worldwide Registry, they didn't just wipe out the competition. They knowingly sent innocent people to jail. the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy was one of the longest, dirtiest trials of the 20th century. How sad there are no more journalists with sufficient integrity to report the story. What a national scandal
Any list of the dirty or dirtiest trials of the twentieth century must include the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy and trial,
because seventy thousand executives were deprived of their access and membership in the largest executive club ever created.

Dirtiest Trials of the 20th Century - Miscarriages of Justice

How rare it is to find a case that can offer not merely two or three, instead, more than a dozen major reasons for overturning that conviction.
Here is a case 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 single richest and most powerful publisher in more than one hundred countries around the world,
easily. empirically and truthfully described as one of the most corrupt corporations in all of human history,
perverted the foundations of American justice in the Who's Who Worldwide case with cash, power, and perqs.

Imagine a trial where not ten percent of the proceedings have ANY connection with most of the defendants.
That alone should require a separation of trial. In this case, NOT 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 days and days and weeks and weeks, all the discussion was about Gordon and his actions.
Prosecution witness after prosecution witness exculpated the sales defendants, yet,
this same judge who had previously dismissed the case after months of study,
was under one of the worst pressures any judge can be subjected to:
pressure from the federal court of appeals above him, who, in
New York's bailiwick, remains under the control of....
Reed Elsevier, the most powerful force today
in the American arena of jurisprudence.

This can be fixed by Presidential Pardon.
Call 202-456-1414 to lift your voice.