Smiling Faces Sometimes

Monday, March 11, 2013

Lemont Love Affidavit Speaks Volumes

First it is important for anyone reading this to understand that Lemont Love is incarcerated and has nothing whatsoever to gain by testifying truthfully for the defense in this trial. In fact, the situation is quite the opposite and Lemont Love is risking his life by making the statement that he has made here.

Mr. Love could easily have gone with the show, as his attorney at the time wanted him to, but refused to lie. Incidentally, that attorney was Richard Roberts of "American Gangster" fame and better known in legal circles as Ritchie Roberts. Roberts character was played by Russel Crowe in the movie and he really is a cop that went to law school at night, became a prosecutor, and then became the defense attorney in the end. As the defense attorney he engineered a plea deal for the real Frank Lucas.

Make no mistake - Ritchie Roberts has plans to turn this saga into a movie and he probably has the connections to do so. He's already working on his own part and has been forming the parts of the government witnesses. I do think that he may need to switch around some of the roles before this story is over.

The affidavit speaks for itself. I accept the many statements as truthful and valid mainly because Lemont Love has nothing to gain and everything in the world to lose. Mr. Love is not a criminal informant, though he has been convicted of crimes. This tells me that he has ethics and morals, regardless of what he chose to do for a living.

I do know for fact that Thomas Moran - the attorney that testified against Paul Bergrin earlier in this trial - was threatened with the death penalty and given 10 minutes to decide if he wanted to be a witness for the government or not. It was a high pressure situation and Moran decided to go with the show.

Lemont Love was offered a deal by federal agents that would have made his case go away. The catch was that the deal required false testimony against Paul Bergrin. Mr. Love passed on that immoral and unethical deal and instead he speaks the truth. The government is pulling out all stops to prevent his testimony in this trial, so this affidavit may be all that you'll get. Love is a hero in my eyes.

One thing the prosecutor has semi-correct: Lemont Love's sworn statement speaks volumes in this case. Why would the defense call Ritchie Roberts to the stand? Would anyone expect Roberts to reveal his true motives or his actions? The defense is not that stupid. Only a total idiot calls a witness when they're not aware of what his testimony would be and only an absolute moron would expect Roberts to incriminate himself on the stand.

Without further adieu, the Lemont Love affidavit (scroll past the government gibberish on page 1 to read it):




More on this story in the next day or two... 


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Today's testimony went pretty good for Mr. Bergrin. Only part that made no sense was when the prosecutor was taking Mr. Love's phone conversation out of context. You could autmotically tell that the prosecutor was trying to discredit Mr. Love in other ways rather than continuing to ask him about the FBI agents that wanted him to make up lies about Paul.

The Government really sabotaged Paul from having a stronger defense by not offering immunity to Paul's witnesses. I'm not sure if Paul really needs to have a stronger defense because so far he's looking good.

Paul asked for a longer defense so he could have the US Marshals bring in 2 more witnesses but the judge ruled against him which I found to be unfair. The judge complained about the trial taking 9 weeks but it's because of the government the trial took 9 weeks not because of Paul.

Hopefully by early next week we find a NOT GUILTY verdict. Another hung jury is not going to be productive. Mr. Love did a very courageous thing today & you can tell by his tone of voice and body language that he is afraid of repercussions from the Government.

Vicky Gallas said...

Why is Cavanaugh ruling against Bergrin calling two more witnesses? There was a list of incarcerated witnesses given to the US Marshal's Office back in mid-February, the 11th I believe. Why can't this be managed? What is wrong with these people?

Paul Bergrin has every right to put on a defense - I do not give a rat's ass if the trial goes for another month and neither should Judge Cavanaugh. Where in the hell is he in such a hurry to get to? This is supposedly his job!

Yes, no matter what decisions Lemont Love made that landed him in prison, he has nothing at all to gain and his testimony is more valid than any of the government's witnesses. You mention body language - Was Mr. Love in court or on the phone?

One thing I will say here - Ritchie Roberts was worthless as a defense attorney to Lemont Love - I saw the sentences for his charges.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Love was in court. You can tell that he was frightened by the government because he is making a very bold move.

The gentleman from Jamaica is not testifying via Skype anymore they just read his statement and I believe they submitted it for the jury to read. Which in my eyes is better than an actually face to face testimony..

Case wise Paul is on the road for an acquittal if the jury sees the lies the government has brought into the courtroom. If Paul was such a bad person why did they wait until 2009 to indict him? Maybe because they knew Anthony Young's testimony would be disastrous by itself?

Vicky Gallas said...

Ah yes, Mr. Love... Well, the recording of the call the government had sounds, well, like not such a good thing for Love. I would have to hear the recording and Mr. Love for myself to know whether I'd trust his testimony, or not. However, we entrust the jurors to do that for us, so I'll just trust the jury on that one.

Do note that the government found lies acceptable on the part of their own witnesses. Hell, one called in a death threat on himself (Oscar) and you can't get much worse than that. The government has proved to me that crime does pay if you're with them.

The newspapers are biased in favor of the government. I'm biased in favor of Paul Bergrin. The jurors saw and heard all of the evidence and the discrepancies in testimony and no matter what happens, we must respect the decisions on each count.

I do feel that the end was premature because I know that Bergrin had numerous additional witnesses. So many rulings against Bergrin throughout this trial that he will have grounds for appeal if it doesn't go his way.