Decide How Many Times This Jury Was Tainted -- Corrupt Trials Judges 20th Century -- Reed Elsevier Criminal Enterprise

Tainted jury? - Maybe You Can Tell

In a courtroom with a federal judge, a dozen federal attorneys, a group of defendant, and spectators, a nervous juror entered the courtroom, separated from the other jurors, and had the courage to tell the Court that people were using improper influence in the jury room. The Court snapped at this literally shaking woman.

With uncommon bravado, she insisted that people were making decisions for other people. Again, the Court's voice rose, saying, "Ah! Ah! I don't want to hear it!" and sent her back into the jury room for deliberations. One might think the attorneys would be leaping, hm?
Not a peep.

At one point, another juror notified the Court that her Mercedes Benz had been hit and damaged in the courthouse parking lot, and that she was sure the hit and run had been committed by one of the defendants, Annette Haley, with Haley's Mercedes Benz. Never mind that Haley had numerous outside investments; none of the other defendants except the publisher of Who's Who had ever owned a Mercedes. Yet the impression on the jury was clearly significant, more so with a juror carping in every private jury session that a rich defendant's Mercedes had hit and damaged her car, AND had denied it and "Who's going to pay for it?," and.... ... and this does not bode well.

After a few days of complaints, and notes to the Court about who she should submit her money claim to, that juror was finally released, long after her damage was done.

Is it possible for employees of a complainant to sit on the jury? The use of the plural is both intended and accurate: although the U.S. Postal Service was the de jure complainant in this case, efforts to secure jury seats for postal employees succeeded, with nary a peep from the federally-paid defense attorneys. With a sixteen-week trial, and enormous pressure from above, it is clear what their influence effected.

The jury heard days and days and more days of testimony about Bruce Gordon's egregiously lavish lifestyle and ninety-dollar socks; followed by weeks and more weeks of testimony about his financial and ethical chicanery. Talk about poisoning people with guilt by association! Not one of the defendants earned in a year what Gordon spent in a week, never spent personal time with him nor broke bread with him, yet the jury concluded that if Gordon could live this way, his employees must have been doing the same thing. Hundreds of hours of testimony focused exclusively on Gordon and his financial picture.

When several jurors mouthed literally tearful apologies to defendants and defense counsel after the end of trial, it became clear that jurors had been demonstrably usurped of their authority and lawful obligations, ergo provably against their will. The appropriate word is 'arrogate.' This case is one for the books, indeed.

Please remember to feed those who are hungrier than you by giving, at no cost to you.

Corporate sponsors donate 1.1 cups of staple food for our free clicks.
When you click this food button and the one that pops open you literally save a human life... at no charge to you.

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

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

Of all the dirty trials -- dirtiest trials in fact -- of the late twentieth century,
the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy has to count amongst the most egregious, not only for the clearly demonstrated judicial corruption,
as well, the true venality of corrupt government officials, including Martin Beigelman,
the US Postal Inspector who clearly appears to have sold his services to the highest bidder, Reed Elsevier.

Considering the extent of this media blackout, not a word in hundreds and hundreds of news outlets,
there's little chance of today's advertising-driven media industry of finding an honest investigative reporter to reveal the filthy underbelly of the federal judicial organ.

In the absence of such integrity in journalism, and the lack of reporters who would dare to cover this story,
the best hope for the so-called "Who's Who-ers" is for YOU to call and demand a presidential pardon for these decent and innocent salespeople.

Please, get involved today. Make the phone calls, because without you, this travesty continues to destroy the lives of decent human beings,
specifically, the sales co-defendants in this trial of Bruce Gordon's greed matched against the voracious and insidious rapacity of Reed Elsevier,
foreign corporation of unlimited bribe tacts, richest publisher on the planet.

Please, call today for a presidential pardon of the "Who's Who-ers."

With pre-trial hearings rushed through December, the trial began in January and did not conclude until the final week in March.
Still, not a word from the media on what was alleged to be the largest scam in American history,
wherein seventy thousand of the brightest, most accomplished humans allegedly "fell victim" to telemarketing scammers,
and loved their memberships so much that forty thousands of them renewed and/or upgraded their memberships
AT LEAST ONE OR TWO TIMES EACH OVER THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS!

Obviously, they got value, or they would not have returned in such stunning and historically unprecedented numbers.
Call the White House today. Please, demand pardons for the "Who's Who-ers."

Can you imagine being on trial where your name isn't even mentioned in the case itself, only "et alia?"
Convicted of conspiring over eight years with defendants you never met, heard of, or even knew of at all?

Never mind half the trial having nothing to do with the sales defendants. How about NINETY-NINE-PLUS percent?
That's not a misprint. Not even one page in a hundred, of evidence, of claims, of testimony, of the transcript itself,
not even one page in a hundred related to the actions, intentions, motivations, or words of the six sales defendants.
Tainted jury to the sleeping judge who'd already reviewed this case for two years and dismissed the charges!!
The same judge, Arthur Spatt, found that no crime had taken place, dismissing the charges,
only to have the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reinstate the charges and, get this...
REFUSING TO HEAR AN APPEAL, despite there being more than a dozen grievous errors.
You're asked to call for an Executive Pardon. Please, raise your voices.