Smiling Faces Sometimes

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Cutting Paul Bergrin on Cross

The clerk completely skipped over filing trial minutes for the 12th of February, which made me curious, of course. So far I have figured out that Rondre Kelly continued his lying testimony and an attorney by the name of Kecia Clark also testified. Anyone that would believe Kelly's wild tale is just plain stupid and I have no clue as to Clark's testimony or why she would be called.

I am hearing that Judge Cavanaugh is continuing to cut-off Paul Bergrin's cross-examination with a crazy claim that the underlying cases are immaterial and limiting Paul with interruptions and statements of him having only a few minutes left to question a witness. Did I miss something? Isn't this a RICO trial?

How specifically does the judge define RICO crimes? Well, having suffered through a RICO conspiracy persecution and trial, I can confidently state that RICO is all about the alleged underlying crimes. Of course the defense must question each witness in relation to the underlying crime! AYFKM.

While my case was a Florida RICO prosecution, I do believe the definition is the same, though Florida law has even more gray wording making it so that anyone could be charged with a RICO violation if actors of the State see fit to charge that way. Still, it is all about the underlying crimes that prosecutors allege. I'll offer a link to the Wikipedia definition of RICO so we're all clear here:


RICO is all about the underlying crimes or predicate acts that prosecutors charge. So how is it that Paul Bergrin is not entitled to thoroughly cross-examine each and every witness used by prosecutors in relation to each and every act they include? For what it is worth, I intend to contact a couple of RICO experts to make sure that I am correct on this because I'm only going by personal knowledge and experience.


For the Record

I do seriously hope that Judge Cavanaugh is not ruling against Paul Bergrin because he or the prosecutors have issues with my blog posts. I am not being instructed or coached or anything whatsoever by Paul or any defense attorney in this case. I am 100% my own person and call it precisely as I see it; nothing more and nothing less.

For those that are wondering, I have no contact whatsoever with Paul Bergrin. Two years ago we shared a couple of emails. I mailed one New Year's card, also a couple of years ago. I absolutely refuse to have any contact with Paul as I know all too well how prosecutors would try and use it. You're not reading the posts of someone born last week.

I support Paul Bergrin because the prosecutorial misconduct is all too evident to me. The railroading is obvious. It was all cool when the impartial Judge Martini was in charge, but I am seeing and hearing things that do not wash with me and I discuss it here; that is what this blog is all about. With Martini around, I could slack-off, knowing Paul Bergrin was being treated fairly.

I suffered with the disbelief of all that was done to me in my own RICO case and the attempts prosecutors made to discredit and ruin my attorney as trial neared. Throughout the process - from arrest to trial - I kept thinking that once they knew the truth, it would all go away. Finally, I realized that they always knew the truth and didn't give a flying crap. I was shocked and amazed that this sort thing occurred in the US, a country that is supposed to be all about its fair justice system. Well, I have been awake for 10 years now - thanks.


A similar case, but with an impartial judge

If you are not aware of the Nino (Antonio) Lyons case in Central Florida (Middle District of Florida), you should be. Federal prosecutors paraded 28+ convicted felons in the courtroom, one after the other. Each was brought from their prison or jail and each expected a sentence reduction in exchange for testimony.

I'm not going to tell you about the Nino Lyons case and instead, I'll defer to the USA Today investigation series (where is that reporter now?) correctly titled, "Misconduct at the Justice Department":




Conclusion

Now in this trial, federal prosecutors have dragged-in witnesses that are not convicted felons, but actually witnessed nothing, hoping that fact will escape you. AUSA Gay only wants you to see that not all witnesses are convicted felons seeking sentence reductions. What is left for you to figure out is what these people actually witnessed. AUSA Gay figures that you're too stupid to notice that major issue.

For example, we have the mother / daughter team that testified early in this trial (see my earlier posts here). Prosecutors called them before the convicted felons for impact. You're only supposed to remember the tears and the anger both felt towards Paul Bergrin. What prosecutors never explained was that neither actually witnessed anything and both need psychiatric help, according to their testimony and AUSA Gay.

For that matter, prosecutors should be required to present a psychiatrist when using words like "brainwashed," and actually they are required to. It's all grounds for a mistrial, except that the judge is not following law here. Now it appears that there is little understanding of what RICO is all about in that courtroom.

Perhaps the USA Today reporters are interested in doing another story since Newark papers are not up to the task. 

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I definitely feel Judge Cavanaugh is slightly pro-prosecution. I do completely agree with Mr. Bergrin being cut short on cross-examination. With all due respect to the Judge I don't believe he understands that Mr. Bergrin is facing the rest of his life in federal prison. The government's case is very fragile. It consists of constant inconsistencies, coached testimony & testimony from defendants seeking leniency for their cooperation. A lot of tax money has gone down the drain.