Smiling Faces Sometimes

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Paul Bergrin Should Be Out on Bail

The so-called evidence used to detain Paul Bergrin without bail back in May of 2009, has never been proven. In fact, if Agent Shawn Brokos (Brocos, Brockus, Manson) had any evidence of the claims that she had another agent (Michael Smith) certify for Bergrin's detention, it would have been revealed long ago.

Paul Bergrin is currently being unlawfully detained and of course this is all a part of the attempt to break him in this absurd prosecution. Why do I use the word unlawfully? Because his detainment without bail violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the alleged facts presented to the judge are all false. The malicious lies stated by criminal informants are the statements used to deny bail.

If you read the Bergrin Detention Certification and have followed the trial, you'll know that the government does not even have the recordings of conversations they claim to have. They quote non-existent conversations in this certification. Perhaps they have the goods on Thomas Moran, at least according to what I am reading, but from what I know, there are no such damaging tapes to play for the jury in relation to any recording of Paul Bergrin. It's all lies.

For just one simple, but important, example, look at page 12 of the certification, letter "a" and there is a statement that one of Paul's clients, Norberto Velez, "stabbed his wife 27 times in front of their eight year-old daughter". The FACT is that the daughter, Carolyn Velez, was not even there, it was not close to 27 times from my recollection, and she was nine years old anyway. Even the reporter with NorthJersey.com caught the important fact that the daughter was not there when the stabbing occurred - see paragraph 3:



For Agent Shawn Brokos to assert that the daughter was present and had actually witnessed this stabbing gave more credibility and importance to her as a witness than was true. The jury in the Norberto Velez trial did not acquit him based only on the daughter's testimony - she was not present when the crime happened!

A simple misstatement of truth easily results in the belief that Bergrin must have coerced the child. The fact is that no one needed to bother to coerce her and she testified only to her parents' tumultuous relationship at her father's trial, which is clearly true. Many of the other listed claims in this certification have been tossed aside and you will not hear from any witness, likely because most are false and/or fabricated.

The FACT is that the many claimed recordings of Paul Bergrin do not exist! This is outrageous, but we cannot blame Agent Michael Smith. As Smith states in cross-examination by Paul Bergrin's attorney at the time (Gerald Shargel), he took Agent Shawn Brokos's word for every single statement and this is a normal practice with the FBI and the DEA. One agent simply certifies another agent's allegations for such filings.

Continue reading the certification on page 14, with the heading, "RISK OF FLIGHT". There are many wild allegations, including offshore bank accounts, hidden assets, 5 fraudulent passports etc.... Sure, Paul Bergrin owned some real estate - Brokos mixes in actual facts with lies that she claims an unknown CI stated to her.

Mr Shargel's cross-examination begins on page 13 of the document:


If you have read the cross-examination document, you are now aware that no fraudulent passports were ever discovered, no offshore bank accounts were ever found, no hidden assets have been located, and Paul Bergrin's real estate transactions were legitimate. There was no corroboration of this CI-4's alleged statements (if CI-4 even exists) whatsoever.

How can Brokos and her pals the AUSAs claim there are 5 fake passports and never produce even 1 of them? How can they make a claim of offshore bank accounts, yet never prove it by naming an account in any other country? How can they not bother to corroborate anything that unnamed CIs state?

Mr. Shargel continues his questioning in relation to CI-6, another either non-existent or unknown confidential informant. On page 44 of this document Mr. Shargel questions Agent Smith in regards all other wild allegations in the Detention Certification and the agents admits that he had no part in the investigation and took Agent Brokos at her word.

After reading both of these documents, it is clear to me that Agent Shawn Brokos (Brocos in the docs) loses too many of her informants and she is in collusion with various AUSAs. The certification contains mainly hearsay, double hearsay, and even triple hearsay, if anyone at all ever made the claimed allegations.

By the time this trial is over, Paul Bergrin will have been held without bail for over 4 years based on false allegations sworn to by an inept FBI agent that often loses her informants! On top of that, she has managed to make DEA Agent Michael Smith look like a fool. What level of incompetence and downright lies will the feds promote in order to prosecute a person that is a whistleblower?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was thinking the same thing. I am completely confused to whether they have this so-called recording of Paul Bergrin allegedly attempting to murder a suspected CI. I have read documents stating they have these recordings and other documents stating they don't. I can't recall perfectly but I also thought Judge Cavanaugh commented on the recordings. Can you clarify this for me please?

As for the denial of bail it was definitely unjust denying Mr. Bergrin of his 8th amendment right without any physical evidence. I completely agree with the passport claims. If the FBI is claiming that Mr. Bergrin has 5 passports than at least attempt to produce 1 of them.

Anonymous said...

Also Paul did a great job cross examining the Prosecutor testifying against him. You can tell he has a more of a personal vendetta against Paul. He's avoided many questions Paul has asked him. Mr. Bergrin asked him a question about subpoenaing attorney-client visits and his reply was he didn't know you could do that because he's been a prosecutor for so many years. Does he not remember Paul used to be a Prosecutor too...

Vicky Gallas said...

I will refer you to my post titled, "Oscar the Informant: Statements out of Context". I do not have transcripts for this trial - only the 1st trial - so I really have no clue if Judge Cavanaugh commented on these recordings. The judge did, however, make an Order regarding the defense being able to have the recordings examined by an expert at government expense on 14 February 2013.

My statement in this post is that the many statements Agent Brokos quotes in the Detention Certification certainly do not exist. No doubt that a statement, taken out of context and truly a joke, does exist. Bergrin knew that Oscar was an informant. There was never a murder plot. There was never any act in furtherance of any murder plot.

On your second post: I was not aware that Bergrin was able to cross exam or question the prosecutor in any way, shape, or form - so I am confused here. Perhaps you are referring to Bergrin questioning someone else???

Anonymous said...

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Paul cross-examined Roger Imhof. Mr. Imhof is a Prosecutor with the Essex County Prosecutor's Office not with the US Attorney's Office.

Vicky Gallas said...

Aha - that prosecutor! No apology necessary - I was just clueless as to what you meant. ;)

It's great to hear that Paul made strides in his cross-examination of Imhof. The guy most likely lost plenty of cases to Paul over the years.

Of course all visitation information can be easily retrieved by prosecutors. Why would Imhof lie? If it wasn't a lie and Imhof is truly clueless on the topic, he sure can't blame Paul Bergrin for his courtroom losses! Even I know that much... lol

Vicky Gallas said...

On another note, I'm sure the feds have Paul's 1 passport that was issued to him in his name by the US Dept. of State, but it's not possible for them to have fraudulent passports (the other 4) in other names that never existed.

I think the judge should require them to produce this non-existent evidence of fake passports and offshore bank accounts that they claimed to have when Paul was denied bond. It's unfair that they're allowed to make the statements and never back them up with evidence.

I still have bad memories of the lying prosecutor in my own case claiming I had offshore bank accounts at a hearing. I was floored - and of course asked where these accounts were and how much $s he claimed I had in them, at which point I was shushed by the judge and prosecutor, but I made my point for the recording at the hearing. But then he also claimed I had trash bags full of cash buried in my backyard - I gave my permission for him to conduct a search and dig-up my yard, provided that he left it as he found it. The fact was that he had already had parts of the yard dug-up illegally (no warrant, no court order, and without my permission when I was not home) and found nothing because it was all BS and lies.

Prosecutors lie and are rarely held accountable - mine was not. He was rewarded with an AUSA position elsewhere later. What a bunch of lying sleazeballs!

Anonymous said...

Its crazy that these ausa's use convicted murders and drug dealers to try to convict a just man that has done nothing but serve his country and defend his clients vigorously..."Free Paul Bergrin"....

Anonymous said...

Seems the same way to me about Mr. Imhof. I feel that he has a vendetta against Paul Bergrin due to the fact that he lost cases to him. If being a sore loser was a crime he would be doing a life sentence. lol.

By the way this blog is a great blog and keep up the great work. I don't bother reader what's in the paper when I can get straight to the facts here. Thanks a million!

Anonymous said...

Its a shame that these prosecutors have to give out all these deals to all these admitted liars and criminals just to try to convict one innocent man. these convicted witnesses are saying anything they have say against mr bergrin to finalize their deals then go back into society and sell drugs and kill people. One of the witnesses (richard pozo) is already back in society selling drugs....