Smiling Faces Sometimes

Thursday, August 8, 2013

A Motion for Reconsideration has been Filed

Today there was a Motion for Reconsideration filed in this case via hand delivery on behalf of Paul Bergrin, acting Pro Se. Mr. Lustberg is on vacation and as time matters, there was no choice except to go this route.

This is the beginning paragraph of the motion:

Defendant hereby submits this motion for reconsideration of the Honorable Court's Opinion and Order, dated July 23, 2013. Moreover, defendant hereby submits additional points for ruling and reconsideration. Please take notice that Defendant was not provided with a copy of this Court's ruling and opinion until July 30th, 2013.

These are the 4 major points covered in this Motion for Reconsideration:

I.  A MANIFEST INJUSTICE WOULD RESULT IF THIS COURT DID NOT RECONSIDER ITS RULINGS DENYING JOA ON THE MCCRAY COUNTS. THE GOVERNMENT HAS GROSSLY MISLED THE COURT ABOUT THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THE RECORDINGS BECAUSE THOSE RECORDINGS PROVE BERGRIN’S ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF THE MCCRAY CHARGES AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT RELIED UPON TESTIMONY IT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WAS PERJURED.

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.

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.

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.


During the course of the next week, I will be discussing each point in a separate blog post. You can read the entire 11-page motion here: Motion for Reconsideration August 8 2013


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Look forward to reading. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I remember John Gotti's appeal when the court ruled that Bruce Cuttler was the Gabino House Council.It had merit but the presiding judge Leo Glasser immediately threw it out, which is exactly what will happen to this.

Vicky Gallas said...

While there is certainly no valid comparison of the John Gotti appeal and Bruce Cutler being Gambino (I figure you meant Gambino) house counsel, you are most likely correct with the statement that Judge Cavanaugh will "immediately throw it out".

The action of "immediately throwing it out" would serve to add more evidence of bias, though no more is needed. Judge Cavanaugh has too many 'friends and family' connected to the government in this case and is incapable of impartiality. Thank you for making the point for me.

You would be better informed if you actually read the motion linked in this post, especially Point #2:

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.


Thank you for your comment. ;)

Anonymous said...

Judges hate being confronted with their own biases, ineptitudes

Vicky Gallas said...

Oh I agree and I honestly believe that Cavanaugh is a good judge; just not with this particular case. Too many personal and professional ties involved.