The New York Times scandal - 2003

Letter from MT Editor in Chief to the Editors of the New York Times

THE "O'BRIEN QUESTIONNAIRE"

The latest in Tim O'Brien's two month quest to reduce his former #1 source, Emanuel Zeltser, to a 1500-word or less negative profile in the New York Times produced the final 9 follow-up questions. Unedited version of the O'Brien's "questionaire", faxed to Zeltser on December 23, 1999, accompanied by Zeltser’s responses are below.

MT obtained a peculiar document, a fax from the Times reporter, Timothy O'Brien to Director of American Russian Law Institute, Emanuel E. Zeltser, Esq. Are these legitimate questions reporter asks? We'll let you judge.

Response from Emanuel Zeltser:

Dear Tim,

Although,  to many of your colleagues your  questions appeared  personally  offensive  ridiculous, and certainly not intended  to  elicit bona fide information., I  chose to respond  to your request one more time.  I also  suggest that you read Ray's article in the Sunday Times -it may answer a lot of your prior questions. I hope you've had a nice vacation  in  Virginia. and  Happy New Year to you. 

Emanuel

---

QUESTION # 1. Can you explain why so many of the immigrants who retained you as an attorney to help process visas for them claimed to be employed by companies with which you were closely affiliated? Can you explain why the educational records submitted to the INS by these same immigrants appear to be fabricated?

ANSWER: Tim, since you are well aware that I do not do immigration work, we may safely assume that the answer lies in your being gravely disturbed by the notion that I may have shared material with your former employer, the Wall Street Journal. Ever since the Journal published the material which you wanted, you've gone in denial mode: if it did not "appear" in my article, "it appears" fabricated. As days went by I saw your condition exacerbate. Left untreated for weeks, the symptoms have progressed to include now not only the documents used by your competitors but any document which you surmise as having come from my office. You know that this is strictly hallucinatory. Deep down you realize that none of the documents coming from me are fabricated or you would not have based your BoNY stories on them. I propose you start by using a simple self-therapy. Any time you feel that a document is fabricated turn to the mirror and ask yourself "Tim, Tim, Tim, didn’t you reference Emanuel Zeltser as a source six times in your August 20, 1999 front page story (Bank in Laundering Inquiry Courted Russians Zealously)? Didn’t you get the material which became the  centerpiece of your and subsequently others’ BoNY-Russian laundering stories from him (i.e., Natasha’s letter to Chairman Greenspan, the Central Bank report, etc.)? -- and most importantly -- Why and when has Emanuel’s material  started appearing fabricated to me? Was it when the Journal ran stories which I wanted so badly?" If this does not help, try writing an article saying that you and everybody else were fooled by Emanuel Zeltser, and that Natasha’s letter, the Central Bank report, the Bank of New York’s scandal --- all were merely figments of  Zeltser’s imagination combined with your naivete. A story like this will do wonders in promoting your book, the "Bad Bet", by illustrating how to place one. But remember: you must stop short of alleging that the Bank of New York was founded by Mr. Zeltser and not Mr. Hamilton -- let readers draw their own conclusions.

QUESTION # 2. You have told me on a number of occasions that you could provide a copy of the back of the promissory note allegedly paid to Natasha Gurfinkel Kagalovsky by Inkombank - the promissory note that you provided to me and other members of the media. To date, you have not given me the back of the note, with Ms. Kagalovsky's signature indicating that the note had been executed. Will it be forthcoming?

ANSWER: At your insistence, Tim, our sessions were recorded, remember? Upon reviewing the tape I found no mention of Natasha’s or her note’s backside. Hearing things however runs consistent with the condition described above. In the first instance try listening to tapes while taking cold showers. If this does not help -- do not hold it inside - express this in your article. You may also consider taking the 4 months paternity leave (you know the drill) and  write "The Back Side Story" (subtitle can be "the Bad Bet II or a Good Bat"). In any event, I think that your teaming up with  Kagalovsky's private eyes, days after Judge Kaplan ruled in favor of my clients as regards her deposition, was a shrewd strategic move. Who knows, if you do well harassing witnesses and lawyers, Natasha may  grant an interview to you too. Also this affiliation turned you into a real player and a witness, i.e., when your colleagues call your "profilees" for comments you'll have a chance to make news rather than   merely report on someone else's. Finally,  I've been given to understand that that this would go a long way towards  rehabilitating your image with your FBI sources.

QUESTION # 3. You told me during our most recent interview that roughly $2 million that moved into the Fishkin - Reid Escrow account at Citibank from Hoverwood and other off-shore entities did not come from Inkombank. You said you could provide documentation indicating where the funds derived from, but, to date, you have not provided me with that documentation. Will it be forthcoming?

ANSWER: Of course. As you are aware (or should be) Hoverwood is one of the parties suing Inkombank and the documents you seek have been part of the public record since 1995. Hoverwood's counsel of record is Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor & Kolker, LLP, who recently wrote to the Times lawyers to express concern that your tactics in intimidating witnesses in Russian money laundering cases may be interpreted as an attempt to influence witnesses (which of course is a  federal crime (for 18 USCS, Sec. 1503, click here) You may pick up these records at the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007, any business day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. If you have difficulty finding the records (or the Courthouse), please call my assistant and she will be happy to give you our copy. You can also obtain a copy from our adversaries, who, according to recent letters to the Times editors, have commissioned your crusade. Pursuing Fishkin and Reid, who are lawyers and witnesses in money laundering proceedings may be one of your best ideas. Concentrate your efforts on Reid: last year her mother died of a massive heart attack, following a visit by a couple of your Russian "sources", so you know that the weakness runs in the family. 

QUESTION #  4. You have told me that you do not know Oxana Bourkenova very well, have had only limited contact with her, and was not even certain where she worked. Can you discuss why your law firm held funds earmarked for her studies at Oxford several years ago? Can you discuss why you and Ms. Bourkenova have shared personal intimacies and confidential bank information as detailed in e-mails she has sent to you from her office at the World Bank? Can you discuss why Ms. Bourkenova visited your office on West 57th Street the weekend of Dec. 11, shortly after the World Bank began its inquiry into her contacts with you?

ANSWER:  My female "contacts" (even limited) did not extend to include a person by the name "Ms. Bourkenova". However, assuming that you inadvertently erred in five out of ten letters of her last name, you must be referring to Oxana Berkounova, the lady who filed a sexual harassment complaint against you. You have no reason to be alarmed, Tim, my contacts with Ms. Berkounova are indeed limited and you are free to continue winning her heart, she seems to like you. If you in fact believe that my law firm provided escrow services for Ms. Berkounova,  you should know better than to ask questions calling for breach of attorney-client privilege. However, let me share a little trade secret with you: law firm's providing escrow services to a client (even female client) does not always infer  "personal intimacies". In fact (depending on the escrow agreement) it does not even assume intimate relationship. Lawyers often hold escrow funds on behalf of clients they have never seen or had sex with. I recall you sharing with me your Oxana "inquiry" tale. I was much impressed, as were many of your colleagues, by your ploy (albeit unsuccessful) to "stir up something" at the World Bank in order to mimic the Journal’s Grigoriev story by Paul Beckett and Andrew Higgins (World Bank Probes Russian Member's Ties to Inkombank) I think you should continue to pursue it for many reasons. First, it makes for a perfect emotional outlet. Second, if  you write about it, seeing the "inquiry yarn" in print will help you feel like an Andrew Higgins-Paul Beckett look-alike. Third, it may help you to finally convince Oxana -- I’ve heard on Dr. Ruth's show that some women like unconventional approaches. Finally, as you know, Oxana has testified against Inkombank in civil and criminal proceedings. If you succeed in "spooking her off" from giving further evidence, your Russian sources will be indebted to you forever. Last but not least. Don’t let your woman’s visit to a law office on 57 Street (assuming hypothetically that this took place) get you depressed. Sometimes it may be as innocuous as filing a harassment lawsuit against you just to get your attention. Go for it, tiger!

QUESTION # 5. Our dinner at the Russian Samovar on October 29, and the drink I shared with Oxana Bourkenova and others from your office afterward, was observed and recorded by a third party. Can you discuss why your and Ms. Bourkenova's account of the evening is so at odds with that third party's record of the events?

ANSWER: Unfortunately I was not there when you shared that ominous drink with Oxana as recorded by your Third Party. Hence, I could not possibly provide "my account". However, if  T. Party's account can stand against Oxana and your other female companions you have nothing to worry about. In any event I think that it is really cool to have your dates "recorded and observed" (even if you didn't really do it, just thinking about it reflects a healthy state of mind). Besides, if you get lucky -  you may also consider videotaping. 

QUESTION # 6. Can you tell me approximately how much money you earned per hour playing piano in a strip club in the mid-1970s? can you tell me what your annual income was in each of the last three years - 1996, 1997 and 1998? Can you provide me with your IRS returns supporting whatever figures you give me?

ANSWER: This is unfair, Tim, unless we take into consideration that the minimum wage at the time was only $2 per hour. Naturally I would have made much more stripping (just from the tips) but coming from the USSR, I was still full of socialist complexes, you can understand that, can’t you? So, how can we possibly compare it with my topless income in 1998? Incidentally, my IRS returns won't support the figures that I would give you because I forgot to declare the go-go tip income. You must take your mind away from strip clubs, Tim. Just because your wife left you and Oxana turned you down you need not give up hope. Remember, there is someone out there who will accept you the way you are, especially considering your recent salary raise. You just go about it too aggressively. Next time, instead of threatening to write a negative article about a lady, try flowers, they really go for that stuff.

QUESTION # 7. Can you tell me how much money your breast enlargement business earned before it was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration?

ANSWER: I would take the FDA over the IRS any day of the week, Tim, but we can’t always choose. Unfortunately, I never experienced breast enlargement "shut down" by the Food and Drug Administration. Sorry, Tim, I understand from your colleagues that a story like this would make you the envy of New York's journalistic community. However, you still have enough of international trivia, e.g., Kishinev law credentials - French connection - Hackensack lawsuit, to win over National Enquirer readers. Nor have I ever made it my business to enlarge breasts - the ladies you are thinking about came that way naturally. You can double- source by sending them questionnaires similar to the one you faxed me. Tell them that if they don’t respond by the end of the day on Monday, you will publish an article that they have silicon implants. This would also be a creative and non-pushy way for you to get better acquainted.

QUESTION # 8. It is my understanding that when the House Banking Committee told you they did not want you to testify publicly as part of its examination of possible money laundering at the Bank of New York, you became extremely agitated and threatened to sue the committee and smear its reputation. Can you discuss this?

ANSWER: Give me a break, Tim! Why would I threaten to sue the United States Congress when I  had a chance to go after the Senate, which held identical hearings immediately thereafter? Neither would I threaten to smear the House of Representatives' reputation - the journalists are doing fine job of that without me. In any event, you have recently contacted the Congressional Committee to ask whether I was requested to help analyze and comment on a new Bill which was sponsored a month after the Hearings. So, you can honestly write that whatever you think happened between the Congress and I, I forgave it and accepted the assignment.

QUESTION # 9. You said in an earlier interview that no final judgment was entered in the American Urgy lawsuit filed against you and your partners. Yet a final judgment has been entered and damages were awarded. Can you discuss this?

ANSWER: Tim, I can discuss anything with you, you know that. The American Urgy case has also been a matter of public record since 1988. Also, I gave you a compilation of judicial findings and conclusions from the court records. (As I indicated in my letter to the Times, you left it in my office, because it showed the absurdity of your quest.) As I told you the trial ended in mistrial and the trial judge’s order sets forth that the reason was that my adversary: "... so tainted the proceedings with scandalously outrageous behavior so as to demean every aspect of the proceeding and completely confuse and create havoc with testimony and evidence so that the jury could not possibly and did not reach the verdict devoid of speculation and prejudice and the verdict bearing no relationship at all to credible proofs permitted, being so absurd as to shock the conscience of any reasonable person..." (Mistrial Order) (For other principal findings in the Urgy action, click here.)   As you know, since 1995 the  Vinogradov-Mogilevich mob faction and its mouthpieces in the US have referenced the Urgy action every time I sued them or their cohorts. They will be happy to share their material with you. It is by and large camera-ready, so you can print it without much  editing. If you need more records, you can get them at the Bergen County Courthouse. (For driving directions from the N. Mountain Avenue click here.)

---

RELATED STORIES

Russian Launderers "Spin"  Back - The Times Reporter Teams Up with Kagalovsky's Gumshoes
New York Times Reporter, Timothy O'Brien Joins Campaign Against Witnesses Testifying Against Russian Mob-Controlled Banks/.

Russian Nouveau Riche Applaud O'Brien
Tim O’Brien’s article in the New York Times ("Doubts Raised About Source in Bank of New York Inquiry") is receiving rave reviews by Russia’s financial elite. "We’ve always said that Americans fabricated the whole story" proclaimed a commentator of the Most-Media...

Is Times Reporter Making Fool of Himself?
In his bizarre January 17, 2000 article Timothy L. O'Brien wrote that Emanuel Zeltser, once the Times primary source for the BoNY-Russian laundering stories, discontinued granting interviews to the idiosyncratic reporter...

Times' Reporter Targets Lawyers, Witnesses
Alarming reports from Moscow and New York show that Russian  financial racketeers are back to their usual stratagem of thwarting criminal and civil proceedings by halting media exposure of their money laundering activity in Russia the US.