Sunday, September 4, 2016

Paul Bergrin Incommunicado: Special Administrative Measures

The Communications Management Unit (CMU) was not effective in silencing him forever for the government in this case and now Paul Bergrin is being held under Special Administrative Measures (SAM). Apparently there was a request for special confinement conditions because Guantanamo North just wasn't enough. Now he is unable to communicate with his attorneys at a vital point in the Rule 33 motion and the 2255 petition.

Who knows the reasoning used by the Newark US Attorney's Office (USAO) and the BOP. It is unlikely that we will ever have an answer to that question. They truly have ceased all of Paul Bergrin's communications, so if you have been expecting a telephone call, an email, or a letter, you will not be getting it. We really have no clue what they have done to him at this point. The last time anyone heard from Paul was on August 22, 2016.


No, he is not on lockdown at Guantanamo North or in SHU for one stupid issue or another - he has been placed under a SAM. You may recall that violating a SAM is what resulted in former attorney Lynne Stewart's prosecution and subsequent imprisonment. Read more about SAM here:


It seems that US Attorney General Lynch had to sign-off on this SAM. Thanks a bunch to Loretta Lynch, who I must add was previously the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Someone in Newark has some contacts! I will admit that I never expected to see such a major subversion of justice under the Obama administration.

The fact is that the government was about to get caught in the long game of lies at play in Paul Bergrin's life and absurd prosecution. There are also people in the way. At this point, we only hope that he is still alive. They are capable of anything so don't scoff at that thought. Anyone who knows Paul, knows that he is as harmless as a kitty-kat, so there is definitely no valid reason for the CMU or the SAM.

One of the last communications from Paul is this letter to Judge Jose Linares filed on August 15, 2016, and now no assistance that he requested from the judge is even possible. You read that correctly: there is nothing that Judge Linares could do about this if he wanted to:


The only hope for Paul Bergrin is if he is granted a new trial on any or all counts. If this were to happen, he would be returned to the Newark area. However, they have made sure that Paul is truly unable to communicate with his attorneys at this crucial time in the legal case, so don't get your hopes up. We could also be certain that there is major pressure to make sure that never happens right now.

I have not had any contact with Paul since mid-August of 2015, when the CMU director blocked all contact, but I do know that he was working with investigators and his attorneys to blow the roof off of this warped persecution. Now, thanks to the SAM, his attorneys are no longer able to communicate anything whatsoever concerning the case, prosecution or investigation.

Have they managed to silence Paul Bergrin forever? I don't know yet - the jury is still out on that question. 

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

The William Baskerville 2255 Case: Lawyers in Wonderland

This 2255 motion filed by William Baskerville is entirely about ineffective assistance of counsel. At every turn in this case, Mr. Baskerville’s attorneys exerted minimal effort, often completely ignoring his requests for specific investigation. These attorneys were like slugs going through the motions and frequently failed to bother with even the most obvious. The appeal attorney was equally ineffective.

Herman and Kayser have now both taken the side of the government to cover up their incompetent representation of Mr. Baskerville. Both have fabricated statements in certifications claiming that they made an attempt to challenge the government's evidence on the chain of custody issue of the drug evidence in the case. The court ordered both attorneys to produce proof of this challenge, but they failed to do so.

The government has pursued numerous inconsistent theories in this case, which are tied to multiple lies and discrepancies in testimony. If the information that we have today had been available early in the case, William Baskerville most definitely could not have been convicted.

I am including a link to William Baskerville’s 2255 Motion. There is such a high level of failure in every possible way that to discuss one or two issues here wouldn't scratch the surface. Mr. Baskerville is representing himself in the case and after you read it, you will understand why.



All documents in this 2255 case available to me and that I am able to publish are found on this page:



Sunday, August 28, 2016

The William Baskerville Case: Where is the Evidence

 According to the government, when William Baskerville advised his attorney of the name of the informant who set him up for the FBI, it was the first step in the conspiracy to murder Kemo DeShawn McCray. The government pursued the death penalty in this case with no actual evidence whatsoever. There would be no video or audio recordings in this far-reaching prosecution that is completely dependent on the word of career criminals turned informant to escape their own lengthy sentences. Nothing, nada, zilch, except for the word of violent criminals with something to gain.


Let that sink in for a moment - The government attempted to kill William Baskerville with no actual evidence whatsoever, only the word of jailhouse informants and Anthony Young, career criminal. There is no video or audio evidence of any murder conspiracy. In fact, the lack of audio evidence at a time when the FBI and the DEA had everyone involved in connected case drug transactions and their friends and families from the Curry prosecution under wiretaps and surveillance speaks volumes. Something like 44K wire intercepts, yet not a single word that implicates William Baskerville, Paul Bergrin or anyone else in Kemo's murder. 

From Paul Bergrin's 2255 Brief:


Contrary to the claims and insinuations which have been propagated for more than twelve years, there is not--nor has there ever been in existence--a recording (sealed or improperly sealed) in which Petitioner says the now infamous, Hollywood-movie worthy and fictitious phrase “No Kemo, No case.” No such evidence exists or has ever existed...



The Drug Buys

When William Baskerville was originally indicted in November of 2003, it was for drug sales to Kemo. His attorney in the case was Paul Bergrin. This is the case connected to Paul Bergrin's count on the murder conspiracy of Kemo. The act that set this alleged conspiracy in motion? William stated to Paul Bergrin, who was acting as his attorney at the time, that he knew who the government's confidential informant (CI) against him was.


DEA agents would later claim that the fact that Mr. Baskerville knew who the CI was, revealed the level of sophistication of the Curry drug organization. The truth is that the government's complaint listed the specific, and small, amount of drugs for each sale and Mr. Baskerville did not participate in any drug sales on a regular basis, so the identity of the informant was all too obvious. The government may as well have put Kemo's name in neon lights.


A criminal defense attorney should have been called to testify by the defense in this case. The expert attorney should have explained why, under the circumstances of this case, it made no sense that anyone would have been advised or anyone would believe that this witness was key to the case.  Usually witnesses in controlled buy cases don't testify because the agent monitors the transaction the entire time and because of the recordings.

But most importantly, an expert  was needed to educate the jury that: (1) that he was not a necessary witness; (2) that there was nothing illegal in disclosing the name of a witness to an attorney, friends or family; and (3) that asking about a witness (as Paul Bergrin did) to non-client is part of a normal criminal defense attorney's job and duty to investigate.  Any attorney worth his salt would have tried to ascertain the identity of the witness and investigated his credibility.


The jury needs a context from which to conclude that this was not a client directing a lackey do-what-you're-told attorney to relay the name as some part of criminal conspiracy.


And here, the facts prove there was every reason to investigate and why such an investigation is necessary to defend in the case.  If the defense had known about the witness' manipulation of the evidence and lies to the agent during that same time period, they would have challenged the drug evidence and filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence. If that had happened, the case, the drug charges, would have been dismissed.



The jury was never even told that there was nothing illegal about disclosing a CI's identity and investigating them. The jury cannot be presumed to know that there was nothing illegal about this. Making them understand this was key to having them give a balanced view of the facts of the case.  They needed to understand that there was no nefarious intent by the client or attorney.


Yet another fact that the jury was never informed of during trial is that long before the government moved to have Paul Bergrin removed as William Baskerville’s attorney in the drug case, Mr. Baskerville consulted with an attorney named Marcia Shein in the Atlanta, Georgia area. Ms. Shein was going to take the case and even went so far as to contact Paul Bergrin and inform him that she would be first chair and he would be second chair. After receiving Ms. Shein’s phone call, Paul Bergrin promised William Baskerville that he would actively pursue his defense, and he subsequently filed a motion of vindictive prosecution in the case. 

Mr. Baskerville reached out to Ms. Shein because Paul Bergrin had been doing nothing at all on the case. Had William Baskerville chosen to have Marcia Shein represent him in the drug case, there never could have been a murder conspiracy case for him or for Paul Bergrin.  


On March 2, 2004, Kemo was shot dead on a Newark street in broad daylight. The government admits that Kemo setup 17 people besides William Baskerville for federal agents. We have no idea how many people Kemo setup in state cases as there was no information on this turned over in discovery.


A Theory is Born 


The government's theory of the conspiracy case initially was that on the day William Baskerville was arrested, (Nov. 25, 2003), Mr. Baskerville and his attorney (Paul Bergrin) were both informed that he was facing life in prison. Based upon this lie, they claimed he initiated this alleged conspiracy by informing Paul Bergrin of the name of the informant in the case and told him to pass this information off to “his crew” through his cousin (Hakeem Curry) to find the informant and get rid of him or else Mr. Baskerville would spend the rest of life in jail.


The evidence that the government used to prove this theory was a slew of jailhouse witnesses / informants consisting of testimony from Anthony Young, Eric Dock, Troy Bell, Ramaine York, Richard Hosten, and Eddie Williams. This was the only evidence that the government could gather together to prove their alleged theory.

The conspiracy hinged primarily on the false hearsay and speculative testimony of Anthony Young, because through his testimony the government made the ridiculous connection between William Baskerville the other alleged co-conspirators.


The Jailhouse Snitches


A list of jailhouse snitches were presented as witnesses in trial to connect the dots in the government's absurd murder conspiracy theory.  


While housed at the Hudson County jail in 2004, Eric Dock, after reading a newspaper article, informed Troy Bell of the information in the article and then commissioned his assistance in plotting the story that Mr. Baskerville was telling both of them that he had people out there looking for the informant in his case to have him killed. The two of them created what they called "The Log" of alleged conversations between the two of them William Baskerville. Both Troy Bell and Eric Dock are career criminals. Troy Bell was actually committed to a mental hospital and said he would “hear voices talking to him”.

Another jailhouse informant, Ramaine York, who was also housed with William Baskerville at the Hudson County jail in 2004, contacted the government and falsely alleged that Mr. Baskerville told him that he had someone out looking for the informant in his case.

Kemo had also setup Richard Hosten and both were in the Marshal's lock up on the day that William Baskerville was arrested as they were arraigned together. Hosten would later claim that he asked Mr. Baskerville if Kemo informed on him and the response was that yes, he did. When both were transferred to the Hudson County jail, Hosten would later claim that Mr. Baskerville made a call from the phone in the holding cell they were in and he overheard him tell the other party on the phone that he was “in jail behind an f’ing bum”  (McCray). In fact, the telephone in the holding cell did not work as it was not allowed for inmate use.


The final jailed informant, Eddie Williams, who was William Baskerville’s cellmate in Hudson in 2004, falsely alleged that Mr. Baskerville informed him when government agents came to see him, he told them that he didn't have anything to do with the McCray murder, but then admitted to him that he had him killed. No such conversation ever took place.



Who Killed Kemo?


Before Assistant US Attorney John Gay and FBI SA Shawn Manson Brokos were involved in the murder investigation there were several persons of interest, and one likely candidate. What we do know for sure is that Anthony Young was not the shooter. The Newark PD homicide detective was on the correct trail, but the investigation and all notes and reports were turned over to AUSA Gay and FBI SA Shawn Manson Brokos. We know that for fact as a Newark PD report recently surfaced. 

There were numerous witnesses willing to testify that Anthony Young's account was a lie; however, Mr. Baskerville’s trial attorneys would not call any of these witnesses in his defense. Rashidah Tarver did testify in Paul Bergrin's trials and she was Young's girlfriend at the time of the shooting. Each person Young claimed was at the nonexistent Avon Street meeting was willing to testify.

William Baskerville’s trial attorneys (Herman and Kayser) refused to put him on the stand. Mr. Baskerville wrote US District Judge Pisano a letter concerning this major conflict. Both attorneys considered the life sentence a major victory, which is only understandable if they considered their client guilty. Indeed, if Mr. Baskerville was guilty of conspiracy to murder Kemo, life instead of death would be a victory. However, these attorneys neglected to even bother with an actual investigation in this case. 


We know from Bergrin's 2013 trial that Ben Hohn tried to testify via video conference from the Four Seasons in Kingston, Jamaica, but the court claimed a technology failure. Mr. Hohn would have testified that Anthony Young went to his auto body shop in the Fall of 2004, with the intention of getting assistance to melt a gun. Mr. Hohn was 100 % sure that the visit was in the Fall, not in March of 2004. Bergrin's defense submitted a sworn affidavit from Ben Hohn. Young claimed to visit Mr. Hohn’s shop within a couple of days of the March 2, 2004 murder for this purpose.


For the record, Anthony Young's so-called life sentence for being the shooter was over a couple of years ago. Young definitely planned to be free and in witness protection long before that day though, as Rashidah Tarver  (former girlfriend) and two other witnesses who were both discovered long after William Baskerville’s trial could testify to today. I am aware of the witness names and have copies of statements from both, but am unable to state the names publicly. 

There was another witness to the shooting - Stacy Webb Williams - but he died 10 years ago. 

The only living eyewitness to Kemo's murder that I am aware of, other than the perp and the driver waiting for the perp, is Johnny Davis. Kemo actually had two stepfathers, and back in 2004, they looked a lot alike. Mr. Davis was with Kemo when he was killed. Kemo's other stepfather, Christopher Spruill, was at the street memorial a few days later and was threatened by the perp, who thought he was Johnny Davis when he pulled a gun on him.


IThis is excerpts from an earlier post on this blog describing the shooter. Keep in mind that Anthony Young is light skinned and was bald at the time of the shooting:



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?



In Conclusion


Consider this post on behalf of William Baskerville my appeal to US District Judge Peter Sheridan. You see, Judge Sheridan has Mr. Baskerville’s 2255 in front of him now as Judge Pisano retired from the position to go into private practice some time ago.

US District Judge Peter Sheridan has the opportunity to right a wrong, or rather a grave injustice. He will be ruling on William Baskerville’s 2255 on September 6, 2016, and I want him and everyone involved in the ruling to understand how very important it is. At best Mr. Baskerville should have his sentence vacated and walk free. If the government actually believes its own allegations in this case, then there should be a new trial. At the least, William Baskerville must be allowed an evidentiary hearing. 


You see, I have come to know Mr. Baskerville over the last several years. During Paul Bergrin's first trial in 2011 on the Kemo murder conspiracy in front of the Honorable US District Judge William Martini, I wondered why the government didn't call William Baskerville to testify if the events they claimed actually happened. I only recently found out that the government did attempt to make a deal with him in exchange for testimony against Paul Bergrin, but he refused to lie on the stand for them. I believe that the offer on the table was for 20 years, which would have given him a release date in the not-too-distant future. Still, Mr. Baskerville was not willing to lie.


I have assisted Mr. Baskerville with gathering information, trial transcripts, and documents for several years now and I am 100 % positive that he was never involved in any murder conspiracy. Please consider this post a plea for justice.


There will be a Part 2 to this post around the middle of September 2016.

If you would prefer to read this lengthy post as a PDF, here is the link:

The William Baskerville Case: Where is the Evidence


Sunday, June 5, 2016

The Overwhelming 2255 and an Order

This is somewhat of an update to my last post The 2255 Now Filed: Informative including an explanation and a discussion of the omitted documents. When the great majority of inmates file a 2255 only the form is filed to start with. The instructions on this government form must be followed - read that it states Do not argue or cite law. Just state the specific facts that support your claim under each section. The actual form that Paul must fill-in again, sign, and file ASAP starts on page 14 in this link:


Now I dated it May 27 as I saw something on the docket that showed this as the filing date; however, there is no docket report available on this civil case filing. The 2255 form, the brief, and the entire Appendix was actually filed on May 25, 2016. It was not filed with CDs as I was originally told; it was filed as a hard copy and had to be scanned in.

The clerk's office retitled documents, omitted other documents, and restricted other documents - as of this minute, no one here knows which documents specifically were restricted by the clerk's office, so I am only discussing what I can see and what was filed and entered in PACER. The titles I am using are the same as the clerk's office used and in the same order.

I have no clue why the clerk's office retitled the documents and entered with the new and incorrect titles in PACER, but they did. I also have no idea why the clerk's office omitted so many documents from the Appendix and restricted others, but they did. I will assume that the government asked a friend in the clerk's office to mix it all up, and they certainly did.

The entries titled Appendix are actually the BRIEF:




The entries titled Exhibit are actually the APPENDIX:












Now, on the 11 entries for the APPENDIX, Volume 1 is missing and Volume 6 is missing, You can look at the Table of Contents for Volume 1 (PDF pages 1-8 in Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 1) to see the list of documents the clerk's office chose to omit - a total of 488 pages (P1-P488).

I have most - the great majority - of documents that the clerk's office chose to omit from Paul's APPENDIX in Volume 1 and Volume 6. All of the documents included have some value in the Bergrin defense, but nothing that should be hidden from public view, so I don't understand why they were originally omitted from the docket entries in PACER.Also, they randomly throw in the first page of the TOC in front of numerous volumes.

However, I have been unable to retrieve anything from the NJDC in PACER since late Friday, June 3, 2016, about the time of the Judge's Order terminating Paul's 2255. When I say anything, I mean exactly that - I attempted to view other cases and nothing from NJDC will open in PACER.

Either 1) I have been blocked via my PACER login for NJDC cases; or 2) NJDC has been down since that time on Friday. I have not looked today, so the problem may have been fixed, but I cannot contact PACER until Monday. I will look tonight and update this post with results. To block me alone would be illegal. Two other people have told me they are having the same problem and thought PACER was down, but it is not as I had no issue retrieving cases from other District Courts. We shall find out what this is about soon.

If you see that a specific document is missing from Paul Bergrin's APPENDIX, please do inform me. I may publish some of the missing documents, but first must explore the situation from a legal perspective and then locate each.

The next issue is that Judge Linares "administratively terminated" Paul's entire 2255 filing. This could mean that it will all be deleted from PACER by the time the problem of accessing NJDC cases is fixed. This is the order made and entered in the file on Friday afternoon (June 3, 2016):


To be clear, I do not blame Judge Linares for making this order. No one should be required to read all of this. That's not how a 2255 works, at least not in my experience. The inmate files the 2255 form, the government responds, the inmate responds with the brief, the government requests a list of documents if they do not already have them etc...

This is how it is normally done. But don't blame Paul Bergrin - he has been held practically incommunicado at this CMU for a long time now. They starve him in this CMU. The government has screwed with Paul Bergrin beyond anything that most people can even imagine. Apparently he wants the documents out there so the public can see what the government has done to him from the first minute this fiasco started so long ago.

This filing is so voluminous that it is close to impossible to deal with, especially the way the clerk's office mixed it all up.


UPDATE on June 6, 2016 @12:45AM

Tried PACER again and am still unable to access this case or any other case in NJDC.


UPDATE on June 6, 2016 @5PM

I was able to retrieve the last 4 available attachments from PACER and it seems that NJDC is back up. The attachments are titled Exhibit, but remember they are actually part of the APPENDIX:

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 12

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 13

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 14

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 15


UPDATE on June 29, 2016 @2:30AM

On June 20, 2016, the clerk's office received and filed the new 2255 local form from Paul Bergrin completed per the judge's instructions:

Bergrin New 2255 Letter June 20 2016

Bergrin New 2255 Form June 20 2016

I have the Motion for a New Trial filed on Monday, June 27, 2016 and the attached certifications. If you would like a copy, you will need to contact me privately and I will send to you as a PDF attachment in email. To contact me just post a comment stating your request and your email address - the comment will not be published and I will respond to the email address.

Friday, June 3, 2016

The 2255 Now Filed: Informative

Paul Bergrin's 2255 was filed by the clerk's office on June 1, 2016. It is unlike any 2255 that I have ever seen and in total, with all exhibits, is close to 5000 pages. I have linked the 2255, Appendix and the first two Exhibits for your reading pleasure. It's definitely enough to keep anyone reading for a while and I will upload the rest of the Exhibits within a couple of weeks.

NOTE: I have titled everything as it is titled in PACER. If I didn't do it this way, I would be confused on the order of the docs. However, what the clerk's office titled as "Appendix" is actually the brief and what they titled as "Exhibit" is actually the Appendix. The first link titled 2255 is actually the 2255 form with checkboxes etc... as it is the government 2255 form that any inmate uses. The brief should be 428 pages. The Appendix should be 5810 pages in total.

Many of the Exhibits are shown as restricted on PACER and are therefore unavailable for me to publish, but there are many more that are available.

Bergrin 2255 27 May 2016

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 1

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 2

Bergrin 2255 Appendix 3

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 1

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 2

I will update this post when I upload the rest of the attachments. 

UPDATE on 3 June 2016 @4:25PM:

I need your help. I know that many people read this blog and are anxious to see Paul's 2255 and everything in it. I am extremely stressed and being pulled in numerous directions at the moment, but will definitely post the other attachments before the weekend is over - there are a few things in front of it (on my to do list) and that's the only reason it will take so long. Right now I need to destress and take care of me for a moment. Here is where I need your help...

Paul Bergrin wrote 464 pages and there are an additional 6000 pages of references and documents. Nothing should be restricted except under court order, so I have no clue why a long list of exhibits are restricted. Many are not restricted. I need someone to give me an actual page count of what is in the links above. I will need the same for the rest of the docs when I upload over the weekend. I am told that the figures do not add-up correctly. We need to know how many pages are missing that are "restricted". And then we must find out why.

For the moment, a page count on everything above (a total) is important. If anyone has time, please post your total or email me privately with it. Thank you for your assistance. We can't let them bury any part of this 2255 and its many attachments.

END OF UPDATE


UPDATE 3 JUNE 2016 @9:10PM

Apparently I am not the only one that is overwhelmed. The judge terminated Paul Bergrin's 2255 hours ago. Paul is being mailed a new copy of the basic 2255 document (as in the government form linked above - first link). Read it for yourself:


Bergrin 2255 3 June 2016 Order

Not sure what to say here, but I'll be back with the other docs I have and a statement on it. 


UPDATE 4 JUNE 2016 @4:45PM

I am adding some more of Paul's "Exhibits" (Appendix included in the 2255) in the order they show in PACER:

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 3

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 4

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 5

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 6

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 7

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 8

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 9

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 10

Bergrin 2255 Exhibit 11


So, there are a few issues going on right now. Really all I can say is that if you want a copy of any docs linked in this post, download all now. There are still more to upload, but it must wait. Oh and I no longer need any page counts and I thank the parties that reached out to me on this issue.


Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Paul Bergrin Suffering in Terre Haute CMU

I have been informed that Paul is really suffering in this Communications Management Unit (CMU) the government stuck him in a long time ago. I am unable to copy any statements here or the person(s) that forwarded them to me would no longer be able to communicate with Paul. If I say how he's suffering, they will know who gave me the message - every letter is copied when it's received.

Paul's communications are monitored by a terrorism unit in Washington DC and any letter or email that contains any sort of message from anyone will not be given to him. He would be given a paper showing the name and address the letter is returned to, so he would know that you took the time to write anyway, and even that little bit means something, so please write and say hello to him. There is also the chance that he will be given your letter. If you care at all, please give it a try.

It takes minutes to compose a short letter and throw it in the mail. Quite frankly, I wish 100K people would do this today for reasons that should be obvious to you.

I can say that Paul's attorneys are currently working on the legal case and he has a new investigator. I will post documents when possible, so do check back weekly for a new post on the topic.

This is Paul's contact information and it must be printed exactly on the envelope. There also must be a valid sender name and address:

Paul W. Bergrin – #16235-050
FCI Terre Haute
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808


Please drop a letter in the mail today. Paul Bergrin needs to know he has supporters!

Monday, August 10, 2015

Someone Is Mad

I received this email this afternoon. For the record, I have only received one of the many emails Paul Bergrin sent me in the last two weeks. From what I was told, he received a couple of the five or six that I sent him.

My emails were simply some questions on the ID channel's fictional documentary and statements made by participants (attorneys). If the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) considers such questions some sort of threat, well, they lost their focus a long time ago, but then we already knew that.


from: CorrLinks <info@corrlinks.com>
to: Vicky Gallas <EMAIL REMOVED>
date: Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM
subject: Inmate: BERGRIN, PAUL
mailed-by: corrlinks.com
signed-by: corrlinks.com


This message informs you that you have been blocked from communicating with the above-named federal prisoner because the Bureau has determined that such communication is detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the facility, or might facilitate criminal activity. The prisoner with whom you were communicating is being informed of this block. You may appeal this block within 15 days of the date of this message by submitting a written request to the Warden of the prison where the prisoner is located. You should include a copy of this notice, an explanation of your appeal request, and any additional documents or information you wish to be considered.



This is my appeal:


Dear Government Lackey Scumbag and Overseer at Guantanamo North, Terre Haute, Indiana,

GFY. Consider this my appeal.

Worst Regards,

me


Obviously, some people do not want you to know the truth about this case. Emailing Paul has been a major puzzle since he went to Guantanamo North anyway and he rarely received any of my emails.

UPDATE on August 11, 2015 @6:30pm -

I was reading through the emails from the last 2 weeks that Paul clearly never received and one was a lengthy email concerning the case, various statements / certifications and the William Baskerville case, which connects to this one in relation to the Kemo murder. It may be that email that the CMU had issue with as I have never been able to receive or respond to case related emails since Paul went to this CMU. They don't want anyone helping him in any way.

There was one other 1-sentence email informing Paul that he needed to get a copy of the recent Order on the William Baskerville 2255 because the judge ordered the government to produce a list of documents and recordings. I can't even mail Paul any case related documents at this CMU and only attorneys can mail this stuff, which is completely absurd, but revealing - they don't want him to make any progress with his appeal and his own 2255. What other possible reason could there be to forbid mailing of case documents available in PACER?

So, no clue if it is this blog and posts from the last two weeks or discussion of Paul's case and certifications and documents. Either way, they want him to be incommunicado in relation to anyone except his attorneys, and I have heard they're giving him trouble on the legal calls as well.

How do you fight a case if you are not even allowed to discuss it? We can be sure that's the point.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Misinformation and Lies: Final Post

The government's entire case is disputed on this blog and/or in documents and the trial transcripts. The Investigation Discovery production about Paul Bergrin is merely a repeat of the lies and misinformation spread by the government actors to various news contacts prior to and during the trials. I have made the decision not to waste my time disputing it all over again. If you want the truth, you will find it in the documents, transcripts and posts herein.

This post is more of a commentary on the show participants and the misinformation that each blurted during the television show. I was surprised, because I actually believed the crap I have watched in these so-called documentaries in past. ID channel spread fiction and called it nonfiction. Some of my comments are short and others not so much, but this is the final post.

 
Who in the hell is Dr. Wendy Blank? Through the first half of the show we were led to believe that she's had some sort of contact with Paul Bergrin, interviewed him, or at least encountered him at some point in time. This is completely false. Paul has never heard of, met, or encountered Dr. Wendy Blank anywhere at any point in time. Considering some of the trash that spewed from her mouth, I consider this unethical. She must be a pal of someone at the ID channel. Go hide under your rock where you belong Wendy.

Really the show should have stuck a disclaimer sign under her name that said...

DISCLAIMER: This woman has never interviewed or even encountered Paul Bergrin and everything she says is nothing more than her best guess based on the government script!

What is this "win guarantee"? Even the telephone call transcripts between Paul and Curry (William Baskerville's cousin) over the possible sentence for the drug sales states nothing like that - Paul estimates the sentence if losing at trial and if making a plea. There has never been any such thing as a "win guarantee" and anyone stating this is spreading false information. Paul was a great attorney, but he did lose sometimes and at other times, he assisted clients with plea deals just like every criminal defense attorney in the country. He was assisting William Baskerville with a plea deal when the government had him removed from the case, calling it a conflict of interest to get rid of him.

Was New York Confidential ever a nightclub? Of course not; they simply made that up. It was Jason Itzler's escort service that he operated from his loft. First time I ever heard it called a nightclub was on this show, and they illustrate the idea with tables, chairs, pole dancers and a fake club atmosphere. Weird.

Richie (Richard) Roberts pretends to be a friend of Paul's that watched him go bad. The truth is the opposite, at least in part. I'm not going to link the docs here, but I could. Look-up Richard M Roberts and see his disciplinary record with the Disciplinary Board for professionals in New Jersey. All sorts of stuff - admonished, censured, and even suspended at one point - and all for fraud and misappropriation of funds, which translates to taking clients' money and doing nothing or nothing much for it. He left defendants hanging and lied to them, often blaming his secretary or wife.

I was told that he's suspended again as of June 15, 2015, but was not able to locate the Opinion that's out there. I figure he must be appealing it and someone hid it. I have read the docs and even civil suits filed by former clients in past, and trust me - he is the worst sort of attorney a defendant in trouble could ever encounter. What a bunch of lies this man told on this show! I think it's obvious who he works for. Besides, he's almost as old as my mother. Time to retire dude, no matter how much you owe the State of New Jersey, and it's a lot from what I read. Just about everything that came out of Roberts' mouth during this show was a lie.

Paul certainly didn't meet Yolanda Jauregui through Itzler. Paul met Yolanda through his law office long before any relationship began. The contact was over her brother, Ramon Jimenez, who had legal troubles. It was several years before Yolanda latched onto Paul and became his girlfriend. The show creates a scene where Yolanda looks like a hooker in a hotel, which is also 100% false. Even Yolanda stated on the record that Paul was unaware of her cocaine deals, so when the scene turned to Yolanda and Paul with duffle bags full of cocaine, the presentation was a total lie.

The Oscar tape was not the government's "slam-dunk" in the case. This tape was tampered with, and I know that for fact as I had conversations with Oscar's ex-girlfriend some time back. She contacted me to inform me of how much of a frightening fraud Oscar the informant really was/is, and trust me - it's much worse than I have ever stated on this blog. She backed it all up by mailing an attorney assisting Paul the cellphone Oscar left behind when he disappeared after a major falling out.

If you read the trial transcripts, you'll also know that Oscar called-in a death threat against himself using a female voice in attempt to avoid testifying and the government had to bring him back to testify about that and his mental condition, including the list of drugs he was on during the time that he worked for the government. What a joke, but to present this sorry lie as a slam-dunk? Sick stuff.

And guess who transcribed this tampered recording? None other than Agent Shawn Manson-Brokos, the main agent and the agent that failed to protect her informant. A real, professional transcriptionist was unable to transcribe it.

Jack Arsenault must know about wiretaps that the government never included, because the wiretap transcripts that I have show nothing unethical or otherwise, and actually back-up Paul Bergrin's defense statements. Really Jack knows nothing much, except what the government claimed throughout this sorry prosecution.

Marc Jacobson thinks that attorneys are not supposed to represent clients that may be guilty. What planet does this quack live on? How on earth could the attorney know for sure the client is guilty? Does this oddball rule that Jacobson decided on apply to any attorneys other than Paul Bergrin?

Jason Itzler certainly was not Paul's "close friend". Why didnt the show pay Itzler a visit and ask? He has been out on parole from his 2012 (? there's so many) New York State case since February 2015, so no excuses! Paul was his attorney.

Larry McShane claims to be a journalist. Really this guy read right from the government script in this case, but he sure missed a lot. For example, in the government's application for no bond, back in the beginning (and linked in Documents section herein) there is a certification from Agent Michael Smith titled, "Bergrin Detention Certification" and also the "Cross Exam of Agent Smith" directly under it. He also missed the trial transcripts and the rest of the case.

Did this journalist bother to read either document noted above? Did he verify the so-called facts stated by the government? So where are these 5 passports and the rest of the bullcrap stated? Even Agent Smith admitted that he simply signed-off on what Agent Shawn Manson-Brokos claimed. Back in my day, journalists actually researched before putting pen to paper. What's this dude's excuse? Too many friends at the Newark US Attorney's Office perhaps.


So to summarize here, the general population has been exposed to the ID channel's fictional fraud parading as a documentary. We know they didn't think this crap up all by themselves, because clearly the producers are not that intelligent. Minor due diligence would have weeded-out the outright lies, but they neglected to even bother with that. I know I'll never view anything called a "documentary" the same way again.

I refer to this post as the final post for reason. If you want to research the truth about Paul Bergrin's malicious prosecution, the documents and trial transcripts are all linked on this blog. I have no reason to continue defending Paul or any aspect of this case and trial and it is now on you to read and research; the real information is all there for you. Unless something drastic (good or bad) happens, I won't be returning to post here.

I truly appreciate all of Paul Bergrin's supporters that I have met or encountered along the way. Sometimes I was not nice, and admittedly outright rude and lacked trust. I am sorry if I offended any one of you during this long journey. It has been almost 5 years for me as it started with one post on my other blog, deleted long ago. While I will remain in contact with Paul, I must say goodbye here. Please do not take it personally if I don't respond to comments here or emails - I'm just tired of this farce of a case.

UPDATE on August 11, 2015 @9:30pm -

A couple of other issues worthy of noting...

Richard Roberts made the statement that by representing himself in trial, he was able to testify uninterrupted through the entire trial. Nothing could be further from the truth, but don't believe me - read the trial transcripts. Judge Cavanaugh and / or his prosecutor team interrupted Paul every other minute. I have watched many trials, but never one wherein the judge participates in the questioning and stops the defense every time they're attempting to make a point.

Also important is that Paul sounds like he's really dragging and repeats himself at times. Want to know why? After trial each day he was thrown in the lockup and was often one of the last to leave the courthouse. By the time he returned to Brooklyn MDC for more lockup, search etc... he missed dinner and it was time for lights out. He rarely had time to review anything and then was awakened early in the AM for the trip back to Newark. Throughout this trial, Paul was lucky to get 2-3 hours sleep a night. We may be able to do well on 2-3 hours sleep in our 20s, but certainly not in our 50s. Paul Bergrin was starved and sleep-deprived for the trial months.


NOTE: If I am reminded of something significant that I have missed on the fictional documentary, I will update this post in the future.