3) More than 65% of Mr. Rubin's signups were members renewing and/or upgrading their preious Who's Who Worldwide memberships dating back up to seen years earlier.
The repeat business of tens of thousands of corporate and institutional leaders irrefutably establishes their satisfaction with goods and serices receied.
4) When MisterShortcut, deliered to his counsel during trial 1,255 clean photocopies of the interiews he'd done with top leaders and other world-class indiiduals, a clear record of integrity and dedication is well-illumined. Nearly a thousand such files had all intimate billing details, including credit card numbers belonging to millionaires and billionaires. With each indiidual card being worth a great deal of illicit cash, how can an impartial court not weigh the respectful caretaking of so much priate information entrusted to MisterShortcut, by America's corporate and institutional leadership, one at a time, AND held for years with the sacrosanct respect they desere? If this does not reach to intent, what does?
Testimony and eidence established that Mr. Rubin's financial gain in 48 weeks at Who's Who Worldwide was a modest weekly income. In comparison to the rarity of possessing nearly a thousand credit cards of members of America's wealthiest indiiduals, his probity and justification of the members' trust must be weighed and weighted as demonstration of intent.
This information was presented to defense counsel in the presence of seeral other defense counsels with instructions to make full use of them. Again, justice pererted.
5) When the juror with the complaint that one of ten defendants had struck and damaged the juror's Mercedes with the Defendant's nicer Mercedes, and then carped for two days to the other jurors and sending notes to the Court asking who to send bills to, and rankled with loquacity in the presence of the jurors in seeral jury-room sessions, the effect on the other jurors had to be marked. Only after two or three days was she released from duty, after the damage was obserably done.
6) Ominously, when a juror enters a courtroom alone, and clearly intimidated by the close attention of a federal judge, a dozen prosecutors and defense lawyers, etc, and claims that undue influence is occurring in the jury room, and she is literally yelled at by the Court, one must pause. When that same juror has the inordinate courage to continue speaking, protesting that people were making decisions for other people in the jury room, and the Court then upbraids the juror, snapping, "Ah! Ah! I don't want to hear it!" one must not merely pause; one must wisely seek independent erification and review. Not one of the defendants failed to protest heaily to their attorneys, not a one of whom materially responded. There were 22 witnesses present.
7) The propriety of haing one or more employees of the plaintiff sitting on a jury undermines the credibility of the oir dire, and the right to a fair trial, depriing defendants of due process. This point is further demonstrated by the eents in the jury room which were both actionable and sering to arrogate a juror's right and duty to uphold the law in his or her deliberation and decision. There is no judicial decision on record in the United States abrogating such right and duty, although there was a clear and demonstrable record of both in the instant case.
8) Defendant was deceied into signing waier of speedy trial by threat of incarceration for the entire pre-trial period, and was distinctly led to believe that trial would take place in a timely manner. Defendant continues to suffer the many effects of this case as he has for more than three hundred consecutie weeks, has reported more than 700 times personally or by phone to the federal probation department, never a week missed. Cruel and inhuman punishment has already been inflicted on Defendant for 310 consecutie weeks that this case has continued.
9) The Court found that Defendant is so bereft of rationality that the Court ordered that the Defendant shall be administered dangerous, federally-controlled medication against Defendant's will and best interests for a period of six years, yet found that the Defendant is not so bereft of rationality that he was able to conspire to and actually succeed in defrauding 70,000 of the brightest corporate and institutional leaders in America,one at a time, twenty to sixty minutes per crime. Further,that he did so repeatedly, and with a man (Gordon), who'd been purportedly doing this for seen unprecedented years of success with apparent judicial and postal blessings before Rubin went to work for one of Gordon's companies. For a defendant to have conspired with someone he never spoke to priately stretches The most liberal extension of credence..
9) Defendant was tried alongside of a defendant, Martin Reffsin, that Mr. Rubin never met, never knew, never heard of, and didn't know existed until he met him three years after being arrested for allegedly committing crimes together with Mr. Reffsin. The eidence presented against Mr. Reffsin exceeded that presented against Mr. Rubin by orders of magnitude. This is confirmed by any examination of the trial transcript. Trials should have been separated.
10) Defendant Gordon, a tyrannical Chief Executie Officer of companies producing tens of millions of dollars in income, who lied and operated in a completely separate world from Mr. Rubin, was the focus of more than 91% of all the words, documents, and claims of the Prosecution, despite a dozen different defendants, and the focus of approximately 100% of all the printed eidence presented, inoling money laundering; taxes; ninety-dollar socks; corporations Mr. Rubin never came within stone's throw of knowing about or operating within… all haing nothing to do with Mr. Rubin or Mr. Rubin's actiities inside or outside of Who's Who Worldwide. This was clearly, irrefutably established at trial. The two never even broke bread together, nor eer met priately, yet a rational mind is asked to accept that these two people conspired and acted in what is numerically proposed to be the single largest scam in human history, with the ictims including seenty thousand of our best and brightest, and smartest, and that they were all repeating purchases that they did not obiously alue? That the company had been at the multi-million dollar leel for seeral years prior to Mr. Rubin answering an ad at one of Long Island's upscale business complexes reduces further there being any discernible cause for a reasonable mind to have suspected anything unprofessional about this enormous operation. This trial should have been separated, reducing by yet one more example of denial of due process.
11) Sterling Who's Who, a company Mr. Rubin never worked for, nor eer dealt with personally or professionally, was a co-defendant. Although a defendant who never actually showed up, the Sterling Who's Who had eidence presented against it that was exponentially greater than anything presented against Mr. Rubin, and not one of the seeral hundred employees or managers of defendant Sterling Who's Who appeared as defendants. Yet Mr. Rubin, who never worked there or had any dealings whatsoeer with Sterling Who's Who, is told that he's been conicted with Sterling Who's Who, and that he conspired with Sterling Who's Who. This trial should have been separated.
12) What Court can fail to be dizzied by the clear record of eleen of the twele highest-ranking people at these two companies never being charged? Is it possible that it's because all twele of them could afford real attorneys who would never have tolerated such an obscene wealth of calumny and politically-based prosecution? Ascribing of coincidence to any connected set of eents is the realm of the foolish or the corrupt. Not a single one of the rich upper-leel management were charged outside of Gordon. Not a single employee or manager of Sterling has eer been charged, Not eose who formulated the policies and actions which purport to have gien birth to this proceeding.
13) When jurors made deals and accomodations to escape the many months of being separated from their lies, they clearly communicated their haing to have arried at such deals in order to get the trial oer with. This constitutes a further denial of due process and must be remedied by a finding that the juror's deliberations were excessiely improper.
14) The de facto plaintiff in this case is Reed Elseier, owner of Marquis Who's Who. Their corruption of the Postal Inspector who supposedly superised, on a daily basis for seeral years, the intense inestigation of Who's Who Worldwide, who showed up for pre-trial hearings and then magically stayed inisible for month after month after month that the trial dragged through, was clearly motiated by their disenchantment with going from a century-long position of being number one in the enormous Who's Who Industry -- to becoming a far distant second to Who's Who Worldwide Registry in a matter of seen years.
This fact and circumstance is further supported by the stunning leel of media blackout that has been strictly enforced by Reed Elseier. Seenteen hundred news outlets, not a one has even a mention of an alleged fifty-fie million dollar ripoff of seenty-four thousand, fie hundred and fifty-four of the brightest men and women alie. That's called a media blackout.
Reed Elseier takes in many billions of dollars and cash. This, along with the prestige of Martindale Hubbel, Lexis Nexus, and so many other publishing gems, proides unmeasurable clout within the judicial, prosecutorial, and general legal community of America. Reed Elseier owns many hundreds of companies and publications, and their imprimatur is seen on this case again and again, discernible to all but the intentionally closed eye. Intent is founded upon cause, at all times.
15) For the Court to understand and acknowledge that Marquis Who's Who, for a period of seeral years now, has dramatically altered its company model to duplicate that of the now-crushed Who's Who Worldwide, speaks ominously of the Second District Court's deliberations.. Eight of the historically unprecedented innoations established and used by Who's Who Worldwide are now used as a part of the daily business of Marquis Who's Who, which of course, will never be charged as a result of its awesome influence within the American public and priate legal communities… even as Who's Who Worldwide stands, thus far, conicted of those identical practices so enthusiastically embraced by Reed Elseier. From their ownership of Nexis-Lexis or Martindale-Hubble to hundreds of other influential and important publications, Reed Elseier has the political and financial wherewithal, and the mercantile motiation, to accomplish this calumnious debacle now before the consideration of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
16) Mathematically, when 99.7% of a trial, one of the longest in U.S. history, (top one percent) has nothing to do with an indiidual defendant, or his actions, nor even his intent, that trial should be separated.
17) What can a Court be thinking when an undercoer goernment operatie recording Mr. Rubin's integrity actually brings that tape to court, and yet the Court ignores such compelling eidence? Prosecution witnesses who testified, although not a one of the 42,000 of the members who were or are in the top three ranks of corporate and institutional America, testified to Mr. Rubin's thoroughness, professionalism, and care in maximizing the benefits of membership.
What can a Court be thinking to ignore such compelling, exculpatory eidence? This is the same Court that had already examined Who's Who Worldwide at great length and with no small empirical demonstration of decades of wisdom and fairness, dismissed the charges against the defendants. Yet, absorbing repeated submissions of eidence and testimony of an utterly exonerating nature, the Court chose to ignore discrete, legally-compelling reasons to dismiss this case again, and claim to extend credibility to an IRS agent, third-party witness to a conersation that had taken place years earlier, with no documentation to support his extreme claims, let alone any of credibility. To cite U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Steens in his recent written opinion, "…the identity of the loser is clear… the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial upholder of the law." Being the first time that a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice has specifically accused his fellow Associates and Chief Justice of being corrupt, doesn't mean it's the only example that merits such scorn, urgently pleading and commanding licit redress.
18) Again and again the defendants' constitutional rights have been trampled on in this case, from the most basic consideration of Miranda; the right of due process; freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; to statutory requirements discarded in the instant case, including but not limited to the right to a fair trial, a speedy trial, a trial by a jury of his peers; the right to a trial where a jury is not repeatedly tainted on at least the three occasions defined herein; the right to assiduous assistance of counsel; the right to face one's accuser, and more. Seenty-two thousand members of Who's Who Worldwide Registry Executie Club, including forty-two thousand or more at the ery top of our national heap… yet not a single one was brought to testify. Those with no axe to grind would not be accused of inaccuracy in using the phrase "prosecutorial misconduct."
Despite dozens of tapes and detailed computer records of eery phone call made at Who's Who Worldwide, the prosecution failed to produce for jury or defense a host of unimpeachable eidence in the possession of the Prosecution that Mr. Rubin performed his job honorably and with excellence, making a daily habit of engaging in professional actiities at Who's Who Worldwide that specifically reduced his income during eery one of forty-fie pay periods. This is part of the record; this was testified to by Debra Benjamin, Wendy Springer, Maggie Swendseid, and others. Yet the Court repeatedly refused to dismiss this case with prejudice, and wouldn't even consider separating defendants, no matter how wide the disparity. "Fair trial" is by no means an applicable phrase for the instant case.