Seenty thousand executies cheated by their own goernment, not a word.
From tens of millions of dollars per year to zero in an instant.
No warning, no admonishments. Nothing but approal from the goernment. In point of testimonialized fact, the U.S. Postal Inspector who'd committed millions of tax dollars inestigating and prosecuting Who's Who Worldwide... repeatedly gae the publisher a clean bill of health, followed up by a similar finding by a federal district court judge. This case goes far beyond standard operating procedures.
To further demonstrate the goernmental/judicial corruption present in this case, that same United States Postal Inspector, Martin Beigelman, who had superised a multi-year, multi-million-dollar inestigation of Who's Who Worldwide, and who had allegedly receied a confession from one of the defendants, never APPEARED AT TRIAL!! He remained, sans explanation, "unaailable" for days, weeks, and months of trial... magically re-appearing on CBS's 60 minutes in his new sinecure position in priate industry, haing bolted his goernment job without warning after something like eighteen years with the Postal Serice. What an unpleasant stench whereer this man's name comes up. Yet again, the Court looked the other way at this bizarre turn of eents, including Beigelman's non-appearance at trial.
He was repeatedly present during pre-trial hearings, where rules of eidence are far more relaxed than during a trial itself. He appeared at these pre-trial hearings, repeatedly perjured himself... then simply disappeared. the goernment 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 obsere the appearance of impropriety or worse:
The Court claimed as its basis for conicting one obiously innocent defendant, Rubin -- innocent based not only on eidence, as well by the exculpating testimony of eery prosecution witness who was questioned about Mr. Rubin -- a confession allegedly gien to Inspector Beigelman... although Beigelman never appeared at trial!! The witness, an IRS agent, claimed that he'd "oerheard" 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 eery good law enforcement agent is trained to maintain.
This IRS agent, offering the only eidence or testimony against Rubin... swore under oath that he remembered the confession erbatim, from years earlier. Still, the Court accepted Beigelman's non-appearance in the case, and believed this lone dissenting prosecution witness, NOT belieing all the other prosecution witnesses regarding Rubin, conicting Rubin on this one undocumented, highly suspicious third-party claim alone. This can hardly sustain Judge Arthur Spatt's reputation in a positie way, calling into question either his competence or his willingness to be swayed by factors outside the courtroom.