Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Paul Bergrin in CMU in Terre Haute

This post is just a short update to the last post about Paul Bergrin's new BOP designation to the Communications Management Unit (CMU). I have heard from a few people that received letters from Paul and as imagined, they do indeed manage and limit his communications. The first and main rule is that there are no messages of any type, so he is not even able to say, 'tell Vicky...' as he has in past letters.

The conditions in Terre Haute CMU are a central reason for this update, but first lets talk about the trip there.... Paul is in decent health and survived the short stay in the lousy Oklahoma City Transport Facility, and this time the stay was short as it is for other inmates that pass through this dump. For 10 hours before leaving OKC, the asshats actually put Paul Bergrin in a cage. Cage is defined here as limiting his ability to stretch, lay down or stand-up. Paul is taller than their cage is. Clearly there are people working in this craphole that have a sadistic streak and enjoy abusing inmates.

Paul Bergrin was then transported on a plane in shackles with some sort of heavy box contraption attached. It was extremely uncomfortable for him. That's really all I know on this part of his journey.

The CMU in Terre Haute FCI was created / built less than 10 years ago, so you'd think it was a state-of-the-art facility - it's not. It's in an old part of the FCI, the area where death row inmates used to be held, in a dilapidated section of the facility.

Paul had nice things to say about the staff in the CMU and it sounds like he has the utmost respect for everyone he has encountered there. From the wording, I seriously doubt that he was forced to say this. So at least the BOP has some decent employees in charge of the inmates as opposed to the sadistic freaks that attempted to starve Paul Bergrin to death in OKC during his lengthy stay there before he went to Tucson.

Paul is strong and doing what he can to work on his case and appeals. I do have some idea what may have caused this designation to the CMU, but I am unable to state it publicly. I will say that an inmate needs to be extremely cautious of the people that want to be his new best friend in prison, especially if his name is Paul Bergrin. Often the stated goals are not real and there's more going on behind the scenes.

I do believe that Paul will be at the CMU for a long time. I'd be surprised if he received a new designation in the next couple of years, so he has definitely been silenced by the government. I have not written him a letter at this point and if I did, I doubt he would receive it because of this blog and perhaps also because of who I am and my own background, though that part is debatable, and I will write and find out in due time.

There is plenty of time, so I feel no rush to write any letter. If you choose to write Paul a letter, make sure to not include any message from anyone else or statement or what another person says about anything. Just write from the heart and say what you mean - the communications are also monitored by a special unit in Washington DC.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Paul Bergrin Designated to a CMU by BOP

The US Attorney's Office in Newark and the BOP have found a way to silence Paul Bergrin - he has been designated to the CMU (Communications Management Unit) in Terre Haute, Indiana. Paul won't be able to complain about starvation, abuse and deplorable conditions in BOP facilities or work on gathering statements and documents in his case. At this point, it looks like he may not even be allowed to correspond with his daughter or contact his attorney, Larry Lustberg. Paul Bergrin is being held incommunicado in Guantanamo North.

Larry Lustberg responded to my questions with this statement:

I have had no contact with Paul since he left Arizona and, even though I am his attorney, and his appeals are still going on -- we are about to go to the Supreme Court -- he has been made inaccessible to us. It really is outrageous. We will challenge this designation.

A Paul Bergrin supporter and blog reader reached out to me with the results of her research on what the BOP has done with Paul Bergrin. She pointed me to the Federal Register for additional reading on the CMU and it has been enlightening to say the least. There are only two CMUs in the country and one is in Terre Haute FCI. The other is in Marion USP. BOP opened these facilities in secret during the Bush administration.

The Bureau of Prisons has so many different acronyms in use that CMU completely escaped me when Paul made a statement about it in a letter. He referred to it as the "terrorist unit" and was really angry just thinking that BOP designated him there - and at that point he just believed that's what BOP was doing because of the specific location he was going to. Apparently he knew what any designation to that location actually meant.

Paul was told where he was going (Terre Haute), but his communications have been so limited in the last six months in Tucson USP SHU (isolation) that no one interpreted his statements as what they actually mean. I responded via his girlfriend that the great majority of defendants and inmates labeled "terrorists" by our government are not even remotely involved in anything terror-related. I basically told him not to be concerned.

No one understood what he was saying, so I don't feel too stupid. Poor Paul. He's tried to warn all of us about what the BOP was doing to him and I took it as just another unwarranted move to a different facility that happens to have lots of Muslim inmates labeled as terrorists. Good grief - this was a completely underwhelming assessment of the situation.


Am I surprised?

Well, aside from the fact that nothing should surprise me in this case, I should not have been. I was concerned the government would place him in a Supermax or even a Guantanamo camp after the trial. They were all so over-the-top, like with Judge Cavanaugh's excessive and bizarre sentence of hundreds of years, that a Supermax sounded like more than a mere possibility.

And then there was the journalist with a German magazine that I put in contact with Paul some time ago. I can guarantee that the US government, the boys in Newark and the BOP did not want Paul in-contact with a journalist from a major publication in Germany. One day that journalist contacted me to say that he received an email notification - yes, the same one that I received days ago - stating that Paul Bergrin no longer wanted to be in contact with him. I asked Paul numerous times in email why he would do that so I could offer this journalist some sort of explanation. Paul never answered me. At the time, it did not occur to me that he never read my question. Yes, I can be naive. More likely than not, Paul wondered why the journalist never followed-up or responded to him.


The CMU is worse than a Supermax

By now you have either searched Google to find more information on a CMU designation by BOP or you're waiting for my explanation. Well, it's not referred to as "Guantanamo North" without reason. At this point, I'll say that when the Paul Bergrin supporter and blog reader called FCI Terre Haute, the government minion that answered the phone almost made the CMU sound pleasant. While such a hellhole designation may indeed seem pleasant to this minion, you'll soon understand that she was full of crap, but then aren't they all? They're bought and paid for by that system, so the answer is yes, of course.


According to the Federal Register BOP statement, an inmate may be designated to a CMU if:

The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, or offense conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related to international or domestic terrorism;

The inmate's current offense(s) of conviction, offense conduct, or activity while incarcerated, indicates a substantial likelihood to encourage, coordinate, facilitate, or otherwise act in furtherance of, illegal activity through communication with persons in the community;

The inmate has attempted, or indicates a substantial likelihood, to contact victims of the inmate's current offense(s) of conviction;

The inmate committed a prohibited activity related to misuse/abuse of approved communication methods while incarcerated; or

There is any other evidence of a potential threat to the safe, secure, and orderly operation of prison facilities, or protection of the public, as a result of the inmate's communication with persons in the community.


Since we already know that BOP defends these two "little Guantanamos" and those in-charge have made locking people up their life work, I'll go elsewhere for my explanations of what really happens to inmates in a CMU. While we're at it, I'll look at the true explanation of how an inmate ends-up designated to a CMU by BOP, but the Federal Register has plenty of real information in the comments responding to BOP's "new rule" on CMUs, so definitely read it.

According to Daniel McGowan, former CMU inmate and activist, writing for Huffington Post: Court Documents Prove I was Sent to Communications Management Units (CMU) for my Political Speech

What's also notable about the CMUs is who is sent there. It became quickly obvious to me that many CMU prisoners were there because of their religion or in retaliation for their speech. By my count, around two-thirds of the men are Muslim, many of whom have been caught up in the so-called "war on terror" others who just spoke out for their rights or allegedly took leadership positions in the Muslim community at other facilities. Some, like me, were prisoners who have political views and perspectives that are not shared by the Department of Justice.



It should be clear to anyone reading this blog that Paul's views are not shared by the DOJ. He knows what the government did and has more information about torture under the Bush administration than any man alive.
 
So what next?

I do intend to explore the topic of what actually happens in the CMU in-depth as well as what has been done to Paul, but for now I will leave you with this to think about: Paul Bergrin's daughter also received one of those email notifications that he no longer wanted to be in contact with her. As if! Yes, I'm indignant and angry. BOP is a criminal organization.

I can hear the US Attorney's Office in Newark and the many government minions that work there calling a checkmate now, but don't count out Paul Bergrin yet.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Paul Bergrin Back in OKC Transfer Facility

Paul Bergrin has been back in the Oklahoma City Transfer facility for a couple of weeks now. He is awaiting transfer to Terre Haute USP in Indiana. You recall my posts about this Oklahoma City FTC, right? If not, you need only look back a few posts and read the letter Paul sent while in that hellhole when he was on the way to Tucson USP this time last year. Read about how they starve the inmates there and never allowed Paul Bergrin to purchase food from the commissary during the 4 months they held him there.

As we know that BOP provides funding for adult meals for inmates in every facility, it is clear that there is something else going on in Oklahoma City. I more than insinuated that someone (or a group of someones) is stealing the food or the funding for food. Has anyone ever done anything about it? Of course not, because they don't give a rat's ass.

Most inmates in the federal BOP never experience this starvation when they pass through this transfer facility as they leave quickly. The average stay at this dump is 3 days with 2 weeks being a maximum. Doing without medical care, a shave, haircut, and adult-sized meals for a few days won't usually kill anyone. However, Paul Bergrin is special and spent 16 weeks there the last time. How long will they starve him this round? How long will they get to hold his mail and otherwise abuse his rights at this Guantanamo west hellhole?

Several of us (me, Paul's girlfriend, a friend that he communicated with) received this email from the BOP email system this morning in reference to Paul Bergrin:

The above-named inmate has chosen to remove your email address from his/her approved contact list and, therefore, can not receive or send messages to your email address.


No telling how many people on Paul's email list received this message - I know only of myself and the two others, but it could be everyone. Did Paul initiate this or is it something they did in the OKC facility? None of us have heard from Paul in email since his arrival at this place 2 weeks ago and normally inmates have almost immediate access to email. The last snail-mail letter that his girlfriend received from him is dated January 20, 2015.

What have these criminals done to Paul Bergrin? Why is he being held incommunicado?


How dare anyone claim to care about veterans and whistleblowers and not do something about this abomination going on in the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)!


UPDATE on 3 February @9:30PM EST:

One of Paul Bergrin's main longtime supporters has contacted me to inform me that she also received this email notification from the BOP email system. Not a chance that Paul would cease communication with her, so this is definitely crap.

The BOP website shows Paul Bergrin at Terre Haute FCI. The only way that Paul is in the FCI instead of the USP is if he is in SHU (isolation). Most likely the USP had no more room in the SHU so they have him at the FCI, but solitary is solitary, regardless of which specific facility it is in. I can guarantee that BOP did not reclassify him as medium security and an FCI is a medium security facility.

This makes sense because Paul hs no access to email. Apparently, he has also not been able to send out mail since the 20th of January. It was pointed out to me that FTC Oklahoma only allows inmates to send outgoing mail on Thursdays - yes, only one day a week! Supposedly the inmates receive mail Monday - Friday, but outgoing is only on Thursdays.

The timing of this and the FACT that Paul is held incommunicado currently says to me that there is a cover-up of what they have done to him underway. It has been months since Paul has had email access and it's clear that both Newark and the BOP do not like the snail-mail letters that he writes. I actually have 10 to publish on the website, but have not done so yet - before the week is over it will be done.

We will find out what is really happening in due time, and sooner rather than later.


UPDATE on 5 February 2015 @3:45AM EST:

Well, well, well... The boys in Newark and the BOP have really outdone themselves this time. Lots of stormy weather and electric is flashing on and off here, so I will be brief. I do intend to compose a post over the next day or two on this horrific discovery. A supporter of Paul Bergrin contacted me with some info and I followed-up, found numerous relevant articles. Yes, it's that bad and worse.

The BOP has designated Paul Bergrin to a CMU (Communications Management Unit). There are only two CMUs in the country; one is in Terre Haute FCI and the other is in Marion USP. Now we know why Paul is in an FCI. These CMUs are often referred to as Guantanamo North.

The government has managed to silence Paul Bergrin. Possibly forever. Even his daughter received one of those email notifications. So much more to say. Feel free to research the CMU and what they actually do there and comment if you want to. I'll post a new post soon.

Monday, August 18, 2014

USP Tucson: Deplorable Conditions in Isolation


A letter from Paul Bergrin was copied to me at his request. When I read it, I was truly angry. Now I just want to see it shoved down their throats, so not angry anymore and seeking publicity regarding the horrific conditions in SHU (the hole) at USP Tucson. This is criminal and really I want to know who is profiting from it, because someone always is.

What disturbed POS gets their rocks off subjecting prisoners to such abuse and deplorable conditions? Is this engineered by the warden at USP Tucson? The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has really gone downhill and is at an extremely low point today.

Now that you've read Paul's statement on the conditions where he is currently being held and heard my complaint concerning the failure of the BOP to treat prisoners humanely, the worst problem is obstruction of his legal work and investigation for his current appeal. Paul Bergrin has people working on his investigation, but is now unable to confer with those assisting him. This case is extremely involved due to the range of counts that must be addressed, requiring him to be available for discussion on the telephone or email.

I have no doubt this trip to SHU that could last for 90 days is at the hands of the Newark US Attorney's Office. They have so much to lose. Paul Bergrin was busy gathering affidavits absolutely necessary to his appeal. Now he is held practically incommunicado.





Read the letter describing the deplorable conditions Paul Bergrin is dealing with in the 2 scanned images included herein. If you're viewing this blog on your phone, you will need to switch to the regular version. Another option is to visit the two links below for large images of the 2 pages:

Paul Bergrin Letter page 1

Paul Bergrin Letter page 2

If you have a few minutes, consider writing Paul a letter to cheer him up.


Share this so that they will be held accountable for their actions!


Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Paul Bergrin in Solitary Confinement

I have just been informed by someone close to Paul Bergrin that he is currently in solitary confinement at USP Tucson. The actual Bureau of Prisons (BOP) term is SHU. In Bergrin's situation, as is often the case with other inmates, he is in SHU for unknown reasons. He's done nothing incorrect, illegal or in violation of any BOP rule.

You can write to Paul at this address:

Paul Bergrin - #16235-050
USP Tucson
U.S. Penitentiary
P.O. Box 24550
Tucson, AZ 85734

Paul Bergrin expects to be in SHU for several months minimum, so they're certainly impeding his investigation and obstructing his legal filings. If the past is an indicator, this is all at the hands of the Newark US Attorney's Office. At this time their cases are colliding and there are many conflicts between testimony in the Paul Bergrin case, the William Baskerville case, and the Rakeem Baskerville and Hakeem Curry case. All of these cases have current motions and appeals in courts waiting to be heard.

This is not much different than the methods used to obstruct Rakeem Baskerville from responding to government motions or orders by the judge in his case currently and in past. This poor guy is unable to effectively send or receive mail - another story for a new blog post this week, so look for it.

I have been told that Paul is suffering, but staying strong and that solitary confinement is torturous for him. If you have done any reading on the effects of solitary on a human being, you will know that they're putting him through hell, literally. I'm sending a letter off today and if you have any concern or belief in Paul Bergrin, you will too.

I'm not sure what else to say at this moment. I knew they'd pull this crap. They must do anything to stop the truth from being revealed and prevent him from advancing his extremely valid legal arguments. I will post again on the situation as soon as I have additional information.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Message From Paul Bergrin

This is a message from Paul Bergrin dated March 18, 2014:

It was last year on this date and about this time, that the federal jury in Newark, New Jersey convicted me on all 23 counts of the Indictment. I want to sincerely and wholeheartedly that all those that have supported me and continue to support me.

I am fighting these false allegations with all my heart and soul and will never surrender, to the lies, fabrications and betrayals, that I have endured. I have lived with nothing but pain, anguish and sorrow for the past 5 years and my heart is broken and has died within me. I will never stop suffering nor give up, until I am free, liberated and in the arms of those I truly love.

For those whom lied, fabricated evidence, betrayed me or to those that know these individuals, you will have to answer to a higher authority and live with the injustice that I have endured, for what seems like eternity. You will never have peace of mind nor rest and it is not to late to come forward and seek justice. These People cannot hurt you anymore nor threaten you and your families any more. Come forward and give me back my family and life. I forgive you. Now forgive yourself and seek God's forgiveness.

Paul.


Note: When the appeal is available to me, I will publish it on the Paul Bergrin website and post a link here.

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Shining the Light on BOP: Guantanamo on US Soil

At this point in time, anyone that can read is aware of how prisoners in Guantanamo Bay camps are mistreated, abused and tortured. Few have a clue that similar abuse is also occurring in U.S. prisons, specifically in the the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. This is not an equal opportunity system and all are not treated equally across the board in all BOP facilities as is projected to the general public.

This is not a discussion about inmates not receiving their mail or being served Monsanto poison for dinner, though both problems are prevalent as well.

What is much more shocking is how the BOP has virtually no oversight or accountability. The prison wardens are being used as pawns by the US Attorney's Office. They use an institution -- whose purpose is supposedly to securely detain, rehabilitate and to implement a predetermined punishment for a specific crime handed down by the court as permitted by the legislature -- as an alter ego. It's crazy.


What is going on at FTC Oklahoma City?

Paul Bergrin has lost 15-20 pounds since we last talked about his weight. They ignore the national menu for food and they give the inmates children portions that would not even fill the stomach of anyone over 7 years of age. There is no commissary and they give inmates one packet of coffee in the morning and one milk for the day. At least 3 packets of this so called coffee are needed to even taste the coffee in it.

So I ask my investigative readers out there: What is being done with the food budget at this institution? Who or what specific group within the facility is scamming the federal government and pocketing the major $funds intended for food for the inmates? In short, who are the thieves???

They lock the showers from 8 in the morning until 5 at night, so there are long lines and they are disgustingly filthy. They shake down inmate cells at least once a week and take any extra clothing. Paul Bergrin has gone almost 3 months with no haircut!

If inmates complain about any of this stated abuse, they retaliate against them and keep them in what is supposed to be a transfer facility under the deceptive guise that they are investigating. They refuse to send out inmate legal mail and only come around once a week on Wednesday morning to collect all mail. They do not answer any inquiries inmates make and they refuse to even provide the forms to complain to the region, which is easy to do as the inmate never sees a counselor.

Everything noted thus far is in violation of BOP rules and some of the mistreatment falls in the category of civil rights violations. While it seems that all inmates in this hellhole are suffering, Paul Bergrin has been selected for special mistreatment. They consistently pass over Paul when transports are going to his exact location (USP Tucson), so we know they are doing this intentionally and to make him suffer. It is like a concentration camp there and I am aware of many more violations and much more abuse - what is stated herein is merely the tip of the iceberg!

Paul Bergrin has been in this particular facility for over two and a half months and he is the longest detainee in transit in the unit. They are definitely doing it to torture him. The same as moving him 3000 miles and even further from his loved ones to make sure he will never see his kids or grandchildren. Of course this was done to Paul before the holidays. Clearly the Newark US Attorney's Office wanted to make sure he would not have any visitors and now with the planned move to Tucson instead of Florida, visits will be rare. They have intentionally separated Paul from his loved ones permanently, or at least as long as he is in BOP custody. That is NOT the stated goal of the BOP!

What they have done to his Paul's new cellmate is worse than situations you read about in third-world countries. His name is Ivin Wosencraft. He is from Amarillo, Texas and has less than one year remaining on his sentence. He was sent home from the hospital Friday night because they refused to admit him, with the Lt. at the institution telling the doctor that he should not admit him unless he will die, since he is leaving Monday. Well, his leg swelled even more and he is in extraordinary pain and agony and is an insulin dependent diabetic. He just finished cancer treatments also. The man is terminally ill. He developed a blood clot and the BOP just brought him into Paul's cell, despite his critical condition. The lieutenant wouldn't let the poor guy go to the ER even though the guy is dying.

NOTE to BOP Region Director: FIRE the INHUMAN lieutenant NOW!

I fear Paul Bergrin will suffer retaliation for my blog posts; however, they cannot be allowed to murder him while we all remain silent and sit in fear. So here I am. If there is any form of retaliation against Paul Bergrin for my words, I can only assure the perpetrators that I know how to get louder by the day and draw international attention to the many forms of mistreatment he is suffering in the BOP Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City.

When you click on the link for this FTC in Oklahoma City, at the bottom of the page it references a Commissary List available and Inmate Legal Activities. This is all lies - there is no commissary and the officers DO NOT send out legal mail.


ATTENTION to BOP Regional Director: Correct the lies on this institution's website page and fix the problems. How would I fix these serious problems? FIRE all employees in the facility, charge the worst abusers with civil rights violations and then replace them with human beings! This is the way this place operates - take note and FIX IT ASAP! And don't forget that there's much more than stated herein...


UPDATE EDIT on January 1, 2014 to add:

I have never heard of a BOP facility being this terrible. Is it possible that this FTC in Oklahoma City is used as a Guantanamo camp type facility by the government to make inmates appreciate regular facilities when they arrive? After all, inmates are only supposed to be in this hellhole briefly and I believe the average stay is 1-3 weeks, with 5 weeks being the longest stay I have ever heard of. Child's portion meals, officers' refusal to send out legal mail, no commissary availability, no haircuts etc... wouldn't be a major problem for a week or 2.

This is where the Newark US Attorney's Office (USAO) enters the picture. BOP originally designated Paul Bergrin to USP Coleman 1 in Florida, which I knew would not fly for the USAO. You see, William Baskerville is in USP Coleman 1, and the last thing on earth that the USAO wants is William and Paul Bergrin working on their cases together. William Baskerville filed a 2255 back in late September (2013) and is fighting for an evidentiary hearing right now.

Some discovery and testimony in Paul Bergrin's 2013 trial contradicts statements made by the same witnesses (Brokos, Anthony Young and more) in William Baskerville's 2007 trial. The USAO has a similar problem with the Hakeem Curry / Rakeem Baskerville discovery and witness testimony contradicting later testimony in Paul Bergrin's trial. It is a lot of material to read, but there are serious inconsistencies between specific testimony in the 3 trials.

Beyond all of that, the issue of the missing food at FTC Oklahoma City is a serious one. I am serious about my questions as I know for fact that these institutions have a generous food budget that covers feeding every adult inmate that arrives. So who has done what with the food and/or the money allocated for the food??? Someone is making out like a bandit while the inmates are being starved!


UPDATE on 18 January 2014 @1:25PM:

Paul Bergrin arrived in Tucson USP this morning. He's finally out of that terrible transfer facility in Oklahoma City!

On a different note, comments intended to harass and denigrate Paul Bergrin or me, the blog publisher, will not be published on this blog. Take your weird issues elsewhere.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Paul Bergrin Suffering Abuse

It looks like I will be reviving this blog in short time. Paul Bergrin was awaiting a transfer to Coleman 1 USP in Florida until he was recently informed that there was a change in plan and he'd be going to USP Tucson. He is currently suffering in the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City.

Paul Bergrin has been at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City for 10 weeks now! He is being abused by the Newark US Attorney’s Office and this abuse has continued care of BOP. He is now the longest detainee in transit in the unit. I will be reviving the blog in short time to expose the treatment he has suffered at the hands of many. Shame on all involved – from AUSA Gay to the FTC director to the low-level employees that are participating in this abuse!

What the sort of crap place is this country? What sort of excuses for human beings run this rotten, corrupt system? Well, this blog has been read by people around the world and it will soon be time to use it to bring attention to the reality of this so-called "land of the free"!

And of course Paul has been obstructed in all legal work on his case. For that matter, they won't even send out his legal mail at FTC Oklahoma City. Perhaps I will publish the 2013 trial transcripts again too. We shall see what transpires over the next few days.


Looks like we're back!


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

The Sentences

Yesterday was the day from hell and really we are only 3 1/2 hours into the next day, so it lives on. I tried to go to sleep, but couldn't and got up to watch a movie... Rendition. Wrong movie to watch at this point in time (yesterday or today) as Paul Bergrin was obviously whisked away to some secret US lock-up, though I suppose it's a plus that the secret location is inside the US. I suppose, but as I don't believe everything I see on tv, I really don't know. The US may indeed be the worst of the worst.

A few people have asked me if I intended to blog about the sentencing today. Of course I don't have anything nice to say and had previously decided to let this blog conclude with the "Eyewitness to Murder" post. I thought it was a good finale. But then one of Paul Bergrin's major supporters wanted the last post, stating the sentencing location and time, to be shared, so that altered the ending of the blog. I figure I may as well keep going, nice or not. This article by Barry Sussman is a must read on the sentencing:

Abu Ghraib Whistleblower Receives Multiple Life Sentences
 

What a fiasco charade this entire case has been. And it ends for the moment with Paul Bergrin being sentenced to 6 life terms plus around 100+ more years on the various counts. The government asked for 5 life terms and Judge Cavanaugh decided to show them some real love and gave them more, more, and more. I'd like to think we all know what side he was on from jumpstreet.


Did you know that Andrea True (Andrea Marie Truden) was an informant? Yup. I know a lady... well, let me introduce you to her. She's real nice and I think you'll enjoy her blog. She goes by the title of The Duchess of Hackney. So go read the truth about Andrea True:


The jury in the Bergrin trial should really appreciate Andrea True and her More, More, More, as after all is said and done, they convicted Paul Bergrin on all counts because there was just so much. There was more, more, and more lies that sounded good coming from the government asshats and they couldn't take the time to actually listen, discuss in-depth, and distinguish fact from fiction. Because we all know that volume and quantity is much more important than quality when it comes to trials, right?

And the judge turned out to be the biggest fan of the government of all. Have you ever heard of a judge handing out lengthier sentences than the vitriolic government asshats with their obviously false evidence and lying witnesses asked for? Well, I have heard of this sort of thing before, but it's rare; real rare. And let's face it - these particular AUSAs are the most spiteful and malicious of any in the country. They had an agenda and truth and facts were not going to get in the way!

This has been a real kangaroo court experience. I thought I had seen everything, but nothing has ever come close to this malicious vendetta with its various aspects and many participants.

Oh and for wayneook over on nj.com: I know you're connected to this case and prosecution. I think I know who you are, but as I ain't sure, I'll just offer initials: M.M. 

Dude, I saw your comments before they made all the comments disappear and we never "jousted". Just in case it skipped your mind, in an early point long ago, you falsely claimed repeatedly that Paul Bergrin was a convicted felon and threatened me with a "promoting prostitution" prosecution over my Blueprint books. I responded that you could give it your best shot. I subsequently, over a lengthy period of time, received email after email after email with some of the most absurd legally compromising questions that I have ever heard.

And wayneook, my dear miscreant, I wouldn't call that "jousting" by a longshot; I do call it criminal harassment. Go fuck yourself and take your many government sock puppets and tools with ya.


And now I have concluded this blog. 

Monday, September 23, 2013

Unjust Sentencing of Courageous Attorney

9/23/2013 at 10AM - UNJUST SENTENCING OF COURAGEOUS ATTORNEY PAUL BERGRIN. Federal Court House, Newark, NJ,  Main Post Office, Walnut Street, Block in from Broad Street. Judge Cavanaugh.


If you are anti war and if you are against injustice then you NEED TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION!

BEFORE THERE WAS CHELSEA MANNING, THERE WAS PAUL BERGRIN.
 
As an attorney who represented some of the soldiers who were accused of abuses in Iraq, Bergrin was the first to begin to expose that the US was authorizing torture. The government trumped up murder charges on him in a kangaroo court and now they want to give him five life sentences. In this video Paul is talking about the corruption of the so called justice system.
 
 
 
 


In 2009 Paul announced his intention to reopen the Abu Ghraib cases. Not long after that, he was arrested and was put into solitary confinement for 9 months. He has been imprisoned ever since.


Also, please read this compelling article about Paul's case:



Thursday, August 22, 2013

Eyewitness to Murder

Let me begin this post by introducing you to Paul Bergrin. We will talk more about him over the weekend and who he really is. Paul Bergrin is NOT GUILTY and he needs your assistance. Please read on...


There is only one living eyewitness to the murder of Kemo Deshawn McCray. That witness tried to tell a list of agents and police officers, including Special Agent Shawn Brokos, what the shooter of his stepson looked like. That witness testified in Paul Bergrin's first and second trial and offered a clear description of the man that murdered Kemo.

The problem was that the witness's description of the shooter did not fit the government agenda. There had to be a cover-up. Why? Let's face it: Kemo was an informant and those responsible for his safety failed miserably. Rather than allowing the public anger to be focused on the parties deserving it and paying out a major settlement to the family of Kemo, they had to pretend it never was.

And then there was the trial of William Baskerville. Anthony Young testified in that trial as well and as a result of his false testimony and claim to be the shooter, Baskerville was convicted. Let's not pretend that William Baskerville was the only person in Newark that Kemo set-up for SA Brokos. The truth is much the opposite. Kemo set-up 17 other people as well - I have a list of all the names. Chalk-up one more vindictive prosecution and conviction by a jury fooled with misinformation and outright lies.

Anthony Young was sentenced to 30 years for shooting Kemo Deshawn McCray, but what the government neglected to mention to the jury in the Bergrin trial, is that Young will receive a substantial assistance letter for his testimony. Anthony Young expects to walk out of prison a free man with a new life in WITSEC before this year is over. Anthony Young owed people on the streets of Newark a serious amount of money, so he needed the protection. Young crossed the wrong people and did have reason to fear for his life, but in exchange for protection he had to tell a story. The government needed a flexible witness, willing to say whatever had to be said to get those convictions.

The one living eyewitness to Kemo's murder is Johnny Davis, his stepfather. A list of other witness accounts reveal that Young is a liar. Numerous recorded calls prove that Young is a liar. I thought we were all clear on that, but the jury failed. They ignored the eyewitness testimony of Johnny Davis and then they followed-up by ignoring the important testimony of Ben Hahn, Rashidah Tarver, and Anthony Young's original statement to SA Brokos when SA Brokos was called by the defense in this trial.

Let's have a look at the testimony offered by Johnny Davis, the only living eyewitness to the murder of Kemo Deshawn McCray, to the jury in this last trial. Mr. Davis testified on January 30, 2013, and his testimony is in Volume 7 of the trial transcripts:

Direct examination of Johnny Davis

From pages 1430-31:

Q. Okay. Did you tell the police department any reason
why you picked that photograph out, the one --
A. Because the kid was tall, muscular, and black,
dark-skinned, and had shoulder-length dreads, and he was the
closest thing I can come to identifying as the shooter.


Cross examination of Johnny Davis

From page 1466:

Q. You didn't hear any -- you know what you heard, you
know what you felt, obviously.
A. I grew up here.
Q. Yes, sir.
And when you turned around, when you made a
decision to turn around, there's no doubt in your mind you
saw a man with shoulder-length dreadlocks; correct, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. A dark-skinned male; correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Heavyset; correct?
A. Yes, I did.


From pages 1469-70:

Q. And you never saw anybody with a New York Yankee hat,
obviously; correct?
A. Obviously, no.
Q. And the man that you saw, you were able to see his
hair clearly, so he didn't have a New York Yankee hat
either; correct?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
Now, there came a time that day when you said you
spoke to the detectives; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wanted the person caught, obviously, that shot
your son and killed him in front of you; right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you told them that the man -- they asked you for a
brief description so they could put out a bulletin to catch
the person; correct?
A. They could ask for a description.
Q. And you told them that it was a black male,
shoulder-length dreadlocks, and he went that way; correct?
I mean, that's essentially what you said because they --
A. That's all I could give them.
Q. And you gave it to them very fast; right?
A. No, I did not. They took me to the precinct and they
sat me and grilled me long enough so I can give it to them.
Q. Well, before you went down to the precinct, they
talked to you while you were at the scene?
A. No, they didn't talk to me at all. They sat me in
there, they treated me like I was one of -- they treated me
like I was one of their criminals.
Q. One thing that you did, you were honest with them in
this one statement; correct?
A. I was very honest with them.


From page 1474 - Defense investigators visit to Mr. Davis in 2011:

Q. So at the time that you gave the statement, Mr. Davis,
sir, you were trying to be as open and as honest as humanly
possible; correct?
A. If someone come to you and tell you that someone is in
jail for 30 years for killing your child, and you look at
their papers and you find that that might not be the killer,
because, you must understand, I said, black hair, dark skin.
Q. And dreadlocks, correct?
A. And dreadlocks. I said nothing about light skin. I
didn't say nothing about brown skin. I might be -- might
not have it all swift up there with the books and the
whatever, but I do got my brains and I do understand what
I'm looking at.
Q. Yes, sir.
So you were being as honest as humanly possible;
right, sir?
A. Yes, I was.


From page 1477 - Mr. Davis is shown a photograph of Anthony Young

Q. And Anthony Young was not the man on March 2nd of
2004.
A. I don't know Mr. Young. I can't determine what he --
who or what he was. So I don't know.
Q. But this is not the man who shot your son?
A. No, he's light-skinned.


Anthony Young is light-skinned and bald, but to make the story fit, Young claimed to be wearing a New York Yankees hat on the day he shot Kemo, presumably to explain away why the only eyewitness to the murder saw dreadlocks. SA Brokos needed the story to fit. Was the jury out to lunch when Mr. Davis testified, or what?

The government has no concern for truth whatsoever. Their only concern is flushing Bergrin down the proverbial toilet and watching him suffer for years while he fights this vindictive prosecution. The statement in a recent (August 16, 2013) motion says that Paul Bergrin is just too late with the impeachment evidence of the numerous call recordings:

"Initially, Bergrin’s reference to 33,000 Title III intercepts is misleading. While that is the entire universe of calls intercepted during the Hakeem Curry investigation, only a small fraction pertain to Bergrin. Significantly, moreover, Bergrin was represented by counsel when the Government produced in discovery all of the intercepted calls on July 1, 2009. As a matter of agency law, notice to Bergrin’s then-counsel (as agent) was notice to Bergrin (as principal). See In re Kensington Int’l. Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 315 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 9(3) (1958) (“A person has notice of a fact if his agent has knowledge of the fact”)). Thus, as a matter of law, Bergrin has had constructive knowledge of the contents of the suppressible calls since July 1, 2009."

"In fact, Bergrin’s counsel knew the contents of the December 4, 2003 calls a mere four months after having received the intercepted calls in discovery. In urging the Government not to seek the death penalty, Bergrin’s counsel argued, “Remarkably, the electronic surveillance never picked up any hint of the meeting described by Mr. Young or that McCray had been targeted at that time for death.” Letter from David A. Ruhnke, Esq., Nov. 30, 2009, at 11 n.10."

In fact, I have searched the file for months in each direction and there is no such, "Letter from David A. Ruhnke, Esq., Nov. 30, 2009, at 11 n.10" in it. This is more spin and lies from the government in this case. Paul Bergrin is not aware of any such letter if there was one.

The Court refused to offer defense witnesses immunity and as they were all too aware that the government was waiting to lurch, to hang-on to any word or sentence that they could possibly use against them, they chose not to testify. Do you blame them? I don't - I could personally attest to the fact that the government is scary is this case. They have painted the picture and they dare anyone to dispute it.

I have been informed that U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh will not allow Paul Bergrin to respond to the government's last motion dated August 16, 2013 and has already ruled in favor of the government in reference to Bergrin's Motion for Reconsideration filed on August 8, 2013. I was told that the ruling sounds like the government wrote it, but sorry - I won't be purchasing crap like that clearly biased opinion in PACER any longer. If you want to read the ruling, you'll have to pay for it yourself.

Consider this my demand for independent judicial review of both the Paul Bergrin and the William Baskerville cases and trials and for a DOJ investigation into a pattern of misconduct in the Newark U.S. Attorney's Office.



NOTE: SENTENCING WAS RESET FOR MONDAY 23 SEPTEMBER 2013 @10AM TO ALLOW PAUL BERGRIN TIME TO RESPOND TO THE GOVERNMENT'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM. THE GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING 5 LIFE TERMS FOR THIS INNOCENT MAN:

Bergrin Status Conf 26 August 2013


Images: Paul Bergrin in his U.S. Army uniform © 2013 Beth Bergrin. I am not aware of the date the images were taken, however, this is the first time either has ever been published anywhere and you must obtain permission from Beth Bergrin to use these images anywhere for any purpose.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Motion Point 4: Unfair Advantage

I consider the main issue to be whether the monitored communications were legally turned over to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Most of us are aware that an inmate in a federal facility has minimal right to privacy and when a person signs-up for a Corrlinks account to exchange emails with an inmate, they are acknowledging that the communications are monitored and by clicking the "accept" button, they're accepting this.

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) monitors every form of inmate communication, from snail-mail letters to telephone calls to emails. The inmate has no right to privacy from the BOP. The party communicating with the inmate may read the Corrlinks FAQ section and No. 9 states:

Are my messages monitored?

The institution housing an inmate determines its need for monitoring messages, letters and other communication. If desired, the institution may monitor any or all messages for any or all inmates. CorrLinks staff does not monitor your messages but may need to assist the institution in such monitoring from time to time.

The problem lies in who is given these communications and how they're used. BOP monitors for the purpose of security and maintaining order in the institution. This is clear and understandable. However, is it legal for BOP to turn those communications over to other government agencies when there is no mention or evidence of any sort of crime?

In the case of Ana DeStefano, her communications with Paul Bergrin were turned over to the government to be used as potential impeachment material. Both Ms. DeStefano and Bergrin were unaware that their personal communications would be used by the government. Keep in mind that there was nothing illegal or in any way related to a crime in the communications and they were very personal. Clearly Ms. DeStefano was shocked that AUSA John Gay used the communications to assist his questioning of her when she testified.

Was it legal for the government to make such use of Ms. DeStefano's personal communications? Did BOP turn all communications over as the result of an ex parte court order, or are all forms of communications sent to the US Attorney's Office and the FBI?

In the situation of Lemont Love, his communications with an outside party (his younger brother) were turned over to the government for the purpose of impeachment (or attempted impeachment) in this trial. Mr. Love is in a New Jersey State prison. Does he have a lawsuit or is it absolutely legal for the State of NJ to turn over his communications to any government agent that asks? Was there an ex parte order that the defense was unaware of?

Doesn't such a practice give the government an unfair advantage at trial? If the US Attorney's Office and the FBI received all of Bergrin's communications prior to trial, they already knew the entire defense strategy. When one side is aware of every move the other side intends to make in advance, that is the definition of unfair advantage.

Finally, did the government have any obligation to disclose the use of the monitored communications prior to the defense witness testimony?

It is entirely possible that these questions will end-up with the SCOTUS. There is no clear precedent or applicable law from what I have been told.

Read the entire Motion: Motion for Reconsideration

IV. THE GOVERNMENT’S UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO AND MONITORING OF BERGRIN’S COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT A COURT ORDER WERE IMPROPER AND CAUSED ACTUAL AND EXTREME PREJUDICE TO BERGRIN’S DEFENSE.


The government's use and abuse of electronic surveillance in the seizure of Bergrin's emails and telephone conversations, while incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn, New York clearly violated the Department of Justices’ Electronic Surveillance Manual and Title III of the Wire Intercept Act as well as the auspices and spirit of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures.

Inmates consent to the screening of telephone conversations and emails while detained within the Bureau of Prisons. This consent, however, is not limitless. It is implicitly understood that interception and monitoring is for security purposes only. These communications are not intended to provide the prosecution with unfettered access to an inmate’s personal and legal communications. The purpose of the monitoring, and consenting to the monitoring, is not to give the prosecution a means to gather evidence for impeachment purposes. Nor is the monitoring intended to be used to scrutinize defense strategies and gather intelligence to determine defense posture in the defense of charges. Moreover, it is improper to use this information to detrimentally affect the defense’s case. Yet, that is precisely what the Government did in this case.

The detention of an inmate, especially a pro se defendant, by its very nature inhibits case preparation and detrimentally affects the ability to prepare a defense. It deleteriously precludes a defendant from properly preparing his case, affects one's ability to properly prepare witnesses for testimony, stymies the ability to concentrate fully on the legal and factual aspects of the defense, and limits the ability to review discovery and fully research issues. The time allotted for case preparation is materially affected and Sixth Amendment rights are extremely hampered. A pro se incarcerated inmate does not have the same opportunities and ability to attain an equivalent level of preparedness as the government as he has diminished resources and assistance.

Consequently, inmates rely on the ability to effectively communicate by use of the telephone and email with co-counsel, paralegals, investigators, experts, family and friends. In sum, Defendants materially use emails and the telephone to foster case preparation. It is impossible to prepare a case for trial without material reliance on them.

The Department of Justice policy is that, in the event that a telephone conversation, monitored routinely by prison officials for the purpose of prison security, is found to contain information relating to the violation of law, prison officials may disclose that information to the proper law enforcement authorities for prosecution. Law enforcement authorities outside the Bureau of Prisons are not supposed to be given carte blanche and unfettered access to an inmate’s monitored telephone calls and electronic communications. In the cases when outside law enforcement agencies ask the Bureau of Prison officials to monitor and disclose future telephone and electronic communications of specific inmates in connection with a criminal investigation being conducted of activities outside the confines of the prison, not affecting prison security or administration, this monitoring is only properly conducted when an interception order has been procured under the authority of Title III.2

In the case sub judice, the government obtrusively, and in contravention of Bergrin's Fourth Amendment, Constitutional and due process rights, seized all of Bergrin's e mails and telephone conversations, without judicial authorization or prior notice to Bergrin. The communications were devoid of any security issues to the Bureau of Prisons and did not contain any indicia of law violations. The seizure paralyzed Bergrin's ability to communicate with Stand-By-Counsel, enabled the government to obtain advance notice of defense trial strategy and the scope and substance of defense investigation and was done with for no other purpose than to unjustly and unfairly obtain impeachment materials for use at trial. It also enabled the government to further the course of its investigation and to prepare their witnesses to counter the defense case. All matters that weighed heavily in the outcome of the trial and gave the government unfair advantage; especially since Bergrin was a Pro Se litigant whom relied heavily on communicating with his defense team, telephonically and through the use of the email system. The prejudice suffered by Bergrin and his case as the result of the government's actions was extremely detrimental. It resulted in denying Bergrin a fair trial.

The extent of the monitoring, how the Government used this information to counter the defense’s strategy and impede the defense’s investigation and trial preparation, and whether other actions were taken to interfere with the defense must be ascertained to determine the full impact on Bergrin’s due process rights and, in particular, whether acts prejudicial to the administration of justice were engaged in by members of the Department of Justice.

Accordingly, the defense respectfully requests that this Honorable Court Order a hearing to compel the government to provide a copy of all communications seized and in its possession, disclose the manner in which the Government seized these communications and the extent to which they were used. Moreover, it is respectfully requested that, if the government obtained telephone conversations and mails of defendant, which included legal communications with members of the defense trial team, that this Court find that defendant's Due Process and Sixth Amendment rights were violated, set aside the verdict and dismiss the Indictment.

I thank the Court for its thoughtful consideration of these issues. 

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Motion Point 3: Multiple Violations of Due Process

 To read Paul Bergrin's motion in its entirety, go to: Motion for Reconsideration

III. THE GOVERNMENT’S INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE DELAY AND COLLUSIVE MANNER IN BRINGING THE INDICTMENT WAS ORCHESTRATED TO ACHIEVE A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE WHICH ACTUALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED BERGRIN’S DEFENSE AND VIOLATED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

 On or about November 25, 2003, Bergrin was retained to represent William Baskerville in the United States District Court, for the District of New Jersey and a formal Notice of Appearance was filed. It is alleged that, subsequent to Baskerville's Initial Appearance (Rule 5, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), Bergrin informed Hakeem Curry that the cooperating witness against Baskerville, was Kemo Deshawn McCray. Additionally, it is alleged that 4 to 9 days after Thanksgiving, Bergrin appeared in the area of Avon Avenue and either 16th or 17th Street, Newark, New Jersey, in the evening hours and supposedly informed Hakeem Curry, Rakeem and Jamal Baskerville, Jamal McNeil and Anthony Young, that Baskerville is going to spend the rest of his life in prison unless they get rid of McCray; and that if there is “no Kemo, there is no case.”

On March 2, 2004, in Newark, New Jersey McCray was shot and killed.

In or about May, 2005, William Baskerville was indicted for the capital murder of McCray and in April of 2007 stood trial, in United States District Court, Trenton, New Jersey. During the course of the trial, the government argued that Bergrin was as guilty as Baskerville for McCray's murder and this accusation was testified to by lead case agent Shawn Brokos of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Assistant United States Attorney John Gay. Baskerville was convicted of McCray's murder and sentenced to life in prison.

In or about January 2007, Bergrin was arrested and Indicted for offenses in New York County, which included conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, conspiracy to promote prostitution, promoting prostitution and misconduct by an Attorney. The offenses were alleged to have occurred between July of 2004 and March of 2005, in New York and New Jersey. A memorandum in the case of United States v. Bergrin, designated as J03166 and 03167, unequivocally depicted that there were innumerable communications and cooperation in the investigation and charging of Bergrin between New York County and the federal government. The memo proves that the New York authorities agreed to delay arresting Bergrin in order to further investigative and charging efforts by the federal government and for federal authorities to achieve strategic and tactical advantages in the
disposition of their case.

Both New York State and the United States Attorney's Office for New Jersey colluded, acting jointly and cooperatively in the prosecution of the prostitution and money laundering case. More importantly, the Jencks Act materials specifically prove that New York State and New Jersey federal law enforcement authorities strategized on the investigation, the timing of Bergrin's arrest and indictment and any plea offers in the New York case.

Bergrin has had continuous legal representation since his arrest in January of 2007 to the present.

In late April of 2009, the New York authorities offered to resolve the Indictments through a negotiated plea by way of offering to Bergrin pleas to misdemeanor charges. Bergrin was promised that all felony charges would be dismissed and that he would receive a maximum of one year probation. On May 4, 2009, Bergrin entered pleas of guilty to two misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to promote prostitution as a means to resolve all charges existing against him.

Within approximately two weeks of his entry of the New York plea, Bergrin was indicted, arrested and charged by New Jersey federal authorities with the New York prostitution accusations, the murder of McCray and conspiracy to commit murder of witnesses against Vicente Esteves as well as other charges.

In or about June 2008, Bergrin was retained to represent Vicente Esteves on a criminal Indictment returned against him in New Jersey Superior Court. Within weeks of being retained to represent Esteves the government induced, paid and procured federal informant Oscar Cordova to record Bergrin and persistently suggest to Bergrin that Cordova would kill cooperating witnesses against Esteves.

The government's delay in indicting Bergrin from the dates of the alleged commission of the offenses violates the fundamental concepts of justice, which forms the basis of our civil and political institutions. It is abhorrent to the community's sense of fair play and decency. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935), Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952). See also Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 526 (1973), Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941 ) and Herbert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316 (1926).

In United States v. Marion, the Supreme Court considered the significance for constitutional purposes the pre-indictment delay. 404 U.S. 307 (1971). The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals against oppressive pre indictment delay. Id. at 324. Actual prejudice makes a due process claim ripe for adjudication and a due process inquiry must consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused. Id. at 324-325. A "tactical delay" automatically violates the Due Process Clause. A Due Process violation might also be made out upon the showing of prosecutorial delay incurred in the reckless disregard of circumstances known to the prosecution, suggesting that there existed an appreciable risk that delay would impair the ability to mount an effective defense. Id. at 321, n 25.

The Third Circuit has held that pre-indictment delay, which is unreasonable and inexcusable, violates the Due Process Clause when it prejudices the defendant (the time between the crime and bringing the indictment) and the delay was motivated in order to obtain tactical advantage or to harass. United States v. Beckett, 208 F.3d 140, 150-51 (3d Cir. 2000), United States v. Arakelyan, 2008 WL 1849126(E.D.Pa., 3d Cir. 2000).

Although these cases did not find unreasonable delay to achieve a tactical advantage, their facts are incomparable and not analogous to Bergrin’s case. Of utmost importance is the finding by our sister Circuits who opined that the government violated defendants’ due process rights when they delayed indictment in order to bolster their case. "The desire to gain such a tactical advantage is not a sufficient reason for trial delay."

In the case sub judice, the pattern of the government's delay can only be interpreted in one light: that the delays were intentionally caused to gain a tactical advantage on behalf of the government and through the manipulation of constitutionally prescribed prohibitions which caused actual prejudice to Bergrin.

The government colluded with the New York District Attorney's Office to make Bergrin an extraordinarily lenient plea offer so that he would accept it and they would have proof to meet one of the two predicate acts for the RICO charge. It is of no coincidence that New Jersey authorities delayed charging Bergrin until subsequent to his New York guilty plea; and that Bergrin was indicted immediately thereafter for charges that originated and terminated in 2005. What is just as atrocious is that the date of Bergrin's arrest and indictment in the case at hand was delayed through coordination between both offices so federal authorities could bolster their case against Bergrin.

The prejudice suffered by Bergrin in defending against the charges as a result of the government's delay in charging him with the McCray murder for five years is immeasurable. The delay resulted in unavailable evidence such as EZ Pass and other records, which would have provided proof Bergrin was not at the location alleged by the government's only witness; the loss of witness Stacey Webb, who died in 2013 and would have contradicted Young's false testimony; dissipated memories of witnesses who were unable to recall events that occurred years earlier; the loss of records detailing Bergrin's whereabouts at given times, which would have exculpated him; and the inability to locate multiple key witnesses who moved to different locations since the alleged incident occurred.

Additionally, the delay in charging Bergrin with the prostitution and money laundering charges strategically crippled Bergrin's ability to make an intelligent and informed decision as to resolving the New York case and inhibited Bergrin's ability to defend the federal charges.

The government further bolstered its case and obtained a significant tactical advantage through their unreasonable delay in charging Bergrin by procuring, inducing and hiring confidential informant Oscar Cordova to obtain recorded statements from Bergrin. Despite the fact that multiple prosecution representatives accused Bergrin of being complicit in the McCray murder case, at least three years prior to him being charged, they unreasonably delayed charging him to achieve a tactical advantage and to usurp their obligations pursuant to United States v. Massiah and United States v. Henry. Bergrin was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and the Esteves charges are innately similar to the McCray charges and indeed were used as 404(b) evidence for the jury to consider in weighing the McCray evidence. The Government’s pattern of manipulation and usurpation was used to avoid the constitutional restraints of Massiah and Henry in violation of the Due Process Clause and the progeny of the cases delineated there from. The Government’s actions abused and violated the aura, tenets and principles espoused in Massiah and Henry.

Moreover, the Government’s representations during the United States v. William Baskerville trial show the intentional and deliberateness in the Government’s decision to delay charging Bergrin with the McCray murder. The government clearly sought to gain a tactical advantage and harm Bergrin’s ability to effectively defend against the McCray charges by delaying charging Bergrin with the 2004 murder. As is clear from the trial testimony of lead prosecutor AUSA John Gay, the Government intentionally delayed pursuing the McCray murder charge to bolster the other charges in its 2009 indictment.

Specifically, during the trial of United States v. William Baskerville, the Government’s lead prosecutor AUSA John Gay testified during the penalty phase. AUSA Gay stated that Bergrin and other coconspirators were not charged because the Government did not “…feel we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.” (May 8, 2007, transcript pages 6277:1 to 6277:25).

Moreover, AUSA Minish's argument to the jury suggests that the Government doubted Bergrin gave the advice Young claimed in his testimony. Furthermore, it shows that the Government misrepresented to the jury the evidence of when this alleged advice was purportedly given by Bergrin in the United States v. Bergrin trials and that the Government grossly and knowingly exaggerated Bergrin’s role. There, AUSA Minish stated:

Let’s put an end to this Paul Bergrin thing. Defense counsel’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is this: Paul Bergrin gave him bad legal advice, that if you kill this guy, somehow or another you’ll get off so, therefore, the fact that he actually did it should be excused; that because he made a decision, which by the way, we have no idea if that was the advice, there is zero testimony to say that was even advised prior to giving up the name, prior to the defendant making a call to Rakeem Baskerville, but somehow or another, having bad legal advice is to excuse this act? Or the fact these other men have not been charged yet...This is a full three years after the crime was committed...while John Gay is my boss, I can tell you right now, it doesn’t matter a whole heck of a lot to whether or not he’s convinced what he believed…whether back in his office he believes or in his personal opinion he believes people are involved does not get you a conviction. {emphasis added}.

(May 10, 2007, United States v. William Baskerville, 6707:17-6709:3). Moreover, AUSA Robert Frazer noted, “…others responsible for contributing to the death of Kemo have not been charged with murder or any other crimes associated with this murder….John Gay told you why. Because we only charge people that we can prove - - where we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt…Anthony Young told us about the other co-conspirators and the whole plan and their roles, but Anthony Young by himself, by himself does not equal beyond a reasonable doubt. If we had come in here without Eric Dock, Rick Hosten and Eddie Williams and all the others, just put Anthony Young up there, could we have expected you to vote this case beyond a reasonable doubt based on Anthony Young’s lone testimony? No….We’re not going to put one person up there without corroboration. {emphasis added}. (May 10, 2007, United States v. William Baskerville, 6660:16-6661:10)

As a result of the delay, Bergrin’s defense was actually and substantially prejudiced in the 2011 and 2013 trials in numerous ways including, as set forth above, the unavailability of key witnesses and documents, destruction of physical evidence as well as pretrial publicity.

Since delaying the charge violated Bergrin’s due process rights and denied him a fair trial, the conviction must be vacated and the McCray-related charges in the indictment dismissed with prejudice. See United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307,324 (1971) (noting that the statute of limitations does not fully define a defendants’ rights with respect to the events occurring prior to indictment and that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires an indictment’s dismissal if the pre-indictment delay caused substantial prejudice to the right to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device to gain tactical advantage over the accused) and United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783,795-796 (1997) (delay in filing charges amounts to a due process violation where there is actual prejudice and prosecutorial intent to undermine the defendant’s ability to defend against the charges where Government gains a “tactical advantage”).

For the aforementioned reasons, the verdict must be vacated and the indictment must be dismissed as violative of the Due Process Clause. United States v. Ismaili, 828 F.2d 153, 167-68 (3d Cir. 1998), United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 at 789-90 (1977). 

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Motion Point 2: Relationships of Judge Cavanaugh

Until I discovered the information herein from the person that did the research, I thought that U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh had some sort of grudge against Paul Bergrin. At this point it seems as if the bias is not a conscious or calculated effort and is simply the natural consequence of his many personal and professional relationships to numerous parties with a horse in this race.

I strongly believe that there were no valid grounds for Judge William Martini to be recused in this case. The bottom line is that the impartial Judge Martini made a few valid rulings unfavorable to the government and they responded with a nasty temper tantrum like the spoiled brats they are. The Court of Appeals obliged, perhaps for no reason other than the bias of the deciding judges (former US Attorneys). On that note, Bergrin has little chance for justice in the Third Circuit. And then there's Justice Samuel Alito, no doubt ready to trip Bergrin if any part of this case makes it to the SCOTUS.

In any issue that actually mattered in this last trial, Judge Cavanaugh ruled for the government. Sure, he threw Bergrin a bone every now and then and tried to keep the overzealous AUSAs in check on occasion, but anyone that has read all of the transcripts is clear on the bias; it cannot be denied. Admittedly, I was happy to learn that it was related to personal and professional bonds and not simply a vindictive play on behalf of the government.

I consider Judge Cavanaugh an excellent judge in other matters that has no issue with impartiality and follows the rule of law. Yes, I have been watching the Backpage / Internet Archive case via EFF and why wouldn't I? I have been heavily threatened by parties connected to this case over a blog and a couple of books. Not that I haven't been threatened in past by others, but I'm not stupid and I do realize the powerful people involved in this prosecution and what they're capable of.

As a result of this trial, I no longer have any faith in the system. This should mean something to you if you recall that I am a former defendant acquitted by a jury of my peers on racketeering and conspiracy counts in Florida. One would expect me to have all of the faith and trust in the world. But I know what Shawn Brokos is. I know what John Gay is. I am all too aware of the facts and reality of this prosecution as I believe Judge Martini was before they managed to ditch him. As we now know, the move was fatal for Paul Bergrin.

This is Point Two of the Motion for Reconsideration:


II. GIVEN THE COURT’S PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTIES ACCUSED OF MISCONDUCT IN THE CASE, A REASONABLE PERSON, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE FACTS, WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT’S IMPARTIALITY MIGHT BE REASONABLY QUESTIONED.

Subsequent to Bergrin’s first trial before the Honorable William J. Martini, Judge, United States District Court, Newark, New Jersey, the government moved for reassignment of Judge Martini, claiming he was not fair and impartial and the Government feared it could not receive a fair retrial. In so moving, the Government cited 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and 28 U.S.C. 2106 and United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1411 (3rd Cir. 1994), arguing that a Judge should no longer preside over a case when a "reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the Judge's impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194,213 (3d. Cir. 2007).

Defendant is aware that the apparent bias must be derived from an extrajudicial source, meaning something above and beyond judicial rulings or opinions formed in presiding over the case. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). In the case sub judice, the blatant appearance of partiality begs for the District Court to immediately recuse itself from this case, seek judicial reassignment and forego further rulings.

In pretrial filings, the defendant articulated the dire need for an evidential hearing relevant to governmental misconduct and improprieties which substantially affected defendant's chances of receiving a fair and impartial trial. Defendant submitted a sworn Certification from retired Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent and licensed Private Investigator, Louis Stevens which espoused a plethora of illegalities; acts of professional misconduct and improprieties infringing upon Bergrin’s Due Process rights; and acts committed by various Attorneys, government representatives and parties to the case (hereinafter Certification). The Certification, the additional supplemental submission (Bergrin Supplement dated July 15, 2013), as well as trial testimony clearly named specific attorneys in this case such as Richard Roberts, Vincent Nuzzi, John Azzarella and Christopher Adams. These attorneys represented seminal cooperating witnesses such as Rondre Kelly, Albert Castro, Abdul Williams, Eugene Braswell, Ramon Jimenez and Yolanda Jauregui; and the information provided to the Court specifically detailed how these attorneys, with the government's assistance and at times at the Government’s behest, breached their obligations pursuant to the Rules of Professional Responsibility and acted outside the bounds of the law.

What has now been ascertained is the inherent intrapersonal and professional relationship's this Honorable Court had with each one of these legal representatives. As set forth herein, the facts show that the public would perceive an overwhelming appearance of impropriety and partiality by this Court in presiding over this matter.

Shortly after being assigned this matter, the defense provided this Court with the Stephens’ certification. The certification raised serious questions about the conduct of Richard Roberts, the attorney who represented several cooperating witnesses, solicited former Bergrin clients and sought movie rights from at least two cooperating witnesses. After trial, the defense learned that this His Honor and His Honor’s close family members have close personal ties with Roberts.

Specifically, attorney Roberts attended Seton Hall Law School with His Honor from 1970 to 1972. Both His Honor and Roberts were employed by the State of New Jersey in the County of Essex from approximately 1973 to 1977. Although they worked in different offices, they forged a genuine friendship and bond based upon their innumerable interactions. Roberts worked for the Essex County Prosecutor's Office for almost ten years and His Honor for the Essex County Public Defender's Office.

During Roberts' employ as an Assistant Prosecutor, he was promoted to supervisory positions and established a life-long relationship with his former boss the Essex County Prosecutor, Joseph Lordi. Lordi is His Honor’s father-in-law. Roberts has publicly and repeatedly referred to Lordi as having been "like a second father to him." See Waldron, Mary. The Life and Career of Richie Roberts Practicing Criminal Defense Attorney and Inspiration for the Movie “American Gangster.”
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/3768/American-Hero-Richard-Richie-Roberts.

As Roberts’ second father, Lordi and His Honor shared a similar bond and relationship as that between Lordi and Roberts. Although unknown to the Defendant until after trial, these relationships apparently were public knowledge as is the fact that Roberts is also a close friend with His Honor's wife, Linda Lordi Cavanaugh. The relationship between Roberts, His Honor and Mrs. Lordi Cavanaugh date back approximately 30 years.

His Honor also was a partner in the Law Firm of Whipple, Ross and Hirsch from 1987 to 1992, the firm that presently employs attorney John Azzarella; the representative for Ramon Jimenez and the attorney against whom Bergrin and Jimenez asserted ethical violations. His Honor remains extremely close personally and professionally with multiple partners in that firm.

Attorney Vincent Nuzzi, the attorney for cooperating witness Eugene Braswell, as well as the former attorney for Hakeem Curry and Jarvis Webb, as well as multiple members of the Curry Organization, has been one of His Honor's closest friends and supporters for the past 30 years. Not only did His Honor work at the Office of the Essex County Public Defender with Nuzzi but His Honor considers Nuzzi one of his closest friends.

Christopher Adams is a partner in the firm of Joseph Hayden, Jr., a firm with which His Honor shares a close intrapersonal relationship for more than 30 years with its senior partners, Justin Walder and Joseph Hayden, Jr. It must also be noted that His Honor served his first Judicial Clerkship with Judge Francis Hayden, in New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, New Jersey.

It is a combination of all these factors, which, most respectfully, gives the public the perception of an appearance of impropriety and partiality by this Court and to which Defendant now seeks recusal of this Honorable Court. It is apparent and inherent that this Honorable Court could not have sat as an independent and objective jurist in light of his close, professional and personal attachments and relationships with these attorneys who represented the core of the cooperating witnesses against Bergrin. This is especially so in light of Bergrin's accusations of misconduct against these attorneys and the prejudicial impact they had in the presentation of evidence in the case.

These relationships between His Honor and the involved parties, discovered subsequent to Bergrin's trial, not only affected the dispositional rulings against Bergrin but required full and complete disclosure and a hearing to determine the degree of prejudice and the impact these outside influences may have had on the judicial proceedings.

In sum, this Honorable Court should no longer preside over this case because a reasonable person with knowledge of all these facts would have to conclude that this Court could have been perceived by the public as partially disposed against Bergrin and in personal favor with those adverse to Bergrin’s interests in this proceeding.


I admit to having little confidence in Judge Cavanaugh doing the right thing, but I hope he proves me wrong.