The Transcribed Oscar Tapes

Anyone that is reading the news reports on this trial has also read the absurd so-called quotes from Oscar the informant's tapes. Would it interest you to know that these tapes are NOT certified to be true and accurate by an impartial source?

Does it hold your interest to know that most of these tapes are completely inaudible and that a regular typist typed out what little could be deciphered from the tapes and then Special Agent Brokos filled-in the rest of the words that the typist could not figure out?

Yes, I am referring to the same SA Shawn Brokos that failed to protect Kemo, her informant, and submitted false statements in the Bergrin Detention Certification. She is the one that created these wild and damaging quotes that are actually non-existent. While she was busy with her new transcribing duty, she made sure to mark all statements by Paul Bergrin that would have revealed a clear game of role playing as "inaudible".

Hell, even Thomas Moran clearly knows that Bergrin was role playing as he was himself - that is a fact and stated in his motion for bond. I have the motion, but have not posted it as it also contains seriously personal information about Moran. However, it is available in PACER and is referred to as "Letters" and dated 20 February 2013 in the file entry. It is 2.7 MB and also includes Moran's psych evaluation and a couple of letters.

The transcriptions I am referring to herein are the quotes repeated to all mainstream newspapers and the actual paper transcripts provided to each juror in this trial. So, when a juror cannot decipher an inaudible statement, they're supposed to refer to SA Brokos's personal transcript. The catch is that almost all statements are inaudible. This is extremely prejudicial to Paul Bergrin!

Is the government aware of what SA Brokos has done here? I have no clue, but if they were not before, they are now. The scam has been exposed. Are the newspaper reporters that have repeated the damaging statements created by SA Brokos in various newspaper articles for several years now aware of how these statements came to exist? They are now if they were not before.

Public opinion of Paul Bergrin has been engineered via use of the statements that SA Brokos created with tapes made by a warped informant that went as far as calling-in a death threat against himself using a female voice; an informant that is a psychiatric patient and turned over these inaudible tapes in a far-reaching effort to escape prosecution for his very real criminal activities.

Is this some new thing to have FBI agents transcribing tapes in their own cases? I have never, in all of my years, heard of anything that ludicrous. What in the hell have these crazy people been allowed to do to Paul Bergrin via abuse of extreme power?

What is going on here and why isn't someone stopping it? And who is Oscar Cordova anyway?

Oscar the Informant Fiasco

Oscar Cordova, or whatever his name is, has sealed the deal on this perjurious fiasco. I believe that these inaudible quotes from recordings were actually transcribed by none other than Special Agent Shawn Brokos, the FBI agent that failed to protect Kemo Deshawn McCray.

Can you even imagine prosecutors allowing the main case agent to transcribe statements that they present to the jury and pass on to the press? I must wonder if prosecutors are fully aware of this agent's actions.

Take a guess why Oscar the lying informant would claim to have received death threats, create said threats, and make such wild claims to prosecutors... come on, take a guess. My guess is that Oscar decided he wanted a new and improved WITSEC location and more money to go with it. Apparently he's not happy with the one chosen by the program.

The bottom line is that Oscar has to be the worst excuse for an informant ever. But is his name actually Oscar and does he actually have any connection at all to the Latin Kings? My bet would be no on both counts, however, prosecutors continue to represent this information as being truthful. Are these prosecutors the dumbest in US history or are they lying to the people they are supposed to represent and to the jury?

Oscar admitted to committing perjury today when he was recalled by the government. He sent himself death threats before the trial. When questioned by Paul Bergrin in prior testimony, he denied it. The government waited to investigate until after Oscar verified he made the recordings. Today they put him on the stand to disclose his perjury to the court and the jury.

They have allowed him to continue to lie about being Lord Gino's son. Gustavo Colon has been in jail since 1972. He and his wife conceived two children while he was in state custody. They have a third child who was adopted. How can they let him lie like that? Who is this person that's claiming to be Lord Gino crown of the Latin Kings son?

Oscar is so crazy that the government eventually disclosed late testimony last week that he is in psychiatric treatment and on various medications, including mood stabilizers and depression drugs.

The transcripts are not accurate transcriptions of what is on the recording. The parts with exculpatory statements are noted as "inaudible". Complete phrases are missing. The quote they keep reporting in the press is inaudible. And no, the transcripts are not certified to be true and accurate by an impartial source as is required in court proceedings. These are the transcripts that prosecutors have handed to the jury!

I would say that prosecutors, the federal agents involved, and each of these criminals testifying is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and as a citizen, I am damned ticked off! They are all complicit in this wild theater production.

Oscar the informant = Total Fail (as I always knew!)

Wait until Thomas Moran testifies tomorrow (26 February). I do have various documents and letters concerning Moran that I have not posted and the main reason is that there is personal information throughout. Trust me - tomorrow will be a brand new fiasco! 

The Vicente Esteves Tale

One thing that a good fiction writer learns early is that fiction should at least be somewhat believable. There should be some connection to reality or a factual basis in the story. Any decent fiction writer will understand that concept, but most lousy fiction writers are clueless on the necessity of using facts in a story. Vicente Esteves tells a tale so absurd that even Hollywood producers would laugh.

The only fact included in the Esteves story is that he contacted Paul Bergrin while in jail and seeking an attorney. The rest of it is like a bad B-movie script. A Google search on the topic yields many similarly written flicks, like Werewolves on Wheels and The Brain Eaters. Really - the Vicente Esteves story is no more believable than either of those B-movies. Some people enjoy these sort of flicks, so they exist; however, certainly have no place in a court of law.

Vicente Esteves and Oscar Cordova went to the same B-movie production school. Their tales interconnect at some points and it is clear that the two shared notes in class.

We discovered that Oscar Cordova lied in testimony earlier in the week. He made the claim on the stand in Bergrin's trial that he only contacted the DEA because though he was a drug trafficker and a gang member, he didn't participate in murder and Paul wanted to murder witnesses. Bergrin's cross-examination revealed that Oscar the informant had never met or spoke with him prior to his meetings with DEA agents and attempts at taping. Caught in his own web of lies - or were they his lies?

Realistically, almost everything that came out of Oscar the informant's mouth was a lie, but Paul Begrin really nailed him on that one. I am left to wonder if Lord Gino (Gustavo Colon) is actually his father. Is Oscar just the usual dirtbag informant or is daddy really the almighty crown of the Chicago Latin Kings? I vote for dirtbag informant, but if I'm incorrect, there's no doubt that daddy disowned him long ago.

I admit to little knowledge on gangs and wish that an expert on the Latin Kings would weigh-in on the topic. Paul Bergrin should have such an expert on the defense witness list.

Script and storyline concocted by agents or witnesses?

There cannot possible be DEA and FBI agents out there that are so stupid that any would buy the crap their witnesses are testifying to in this trial. I, believe it or not, still have some level of respect for the system, though it's been slim for years and is getting slimmer by the minute. To think that these agents are the level of stupid required to buy all of this hogwash would just floor me. Please tell me it ain't so....

The problem is that if these agents are not so stupid as to buy this crap hook, line, and sinker, they certainly helped to concoct it and created this storyline. We the people lose either way, obviously. All of the agents (DEA and FBI) are paid great salaries. The people have become the suckers in this equation, no matter how you want to view it.

What does this say about the prosecution team?

Not much that's good, I'm afraid. Prosecutors are supposed to represent the people and make a serious effort to weed-out the lies told by the criminal informants that they present during the course of a trial. As a matter of fact, the prosecutor carries the ultimate responsibility to actually verify any main points asserted by these criminal witnesses prior to any trial testimony.

So what would a prosecutor do if he discovered that a government witness was lying on the stand or even in sworn depositions? What if a different prosecutor still insisted on the testimony being valid? Well, I can only tell you what happened in my own trial:

John Craft (now an AUSA) was not the only prosecutor in my trial. Craft also had the assistance of the main area prosecutor with the Office of the Statewide Prosecutor, John Roman. Roman would not call my co-defendant (Robert Mihalek AKA Rocky) to the stand when he realized that his testimony in depositions was a bunch of lies. Roman ordered Rocky to leave the courthouse and he was never called to testify.

A prosecutor that truly represented the people would have called Rocky and allowed him to impeach himself and admit to all of the lies and name those that coerced and pushed him to state the lies to begin with. So I have no real admiration for John Roman, but I also do not despise him as I do John Craft. Do you see the difference here? 

Roman was not willing to go the extra step of participating in the scheme. On the other hand, he made no move to correct it either. Roman was mad when he figured out what was done, but not mad enough to correct it.

Edit 23 February 2013 @ 6:30pm EST:

That was the short version of the Roman and Craft story. I decided that if I am going to tell it at all, I should do so correctly:

Craft, Roman, and my co-defendant (Rocky) all entered a private room near the courtroom. Craft stated that they wanted to go over Rocky's testimony. Rocky stated that there was no need to because he knew the truth and fully intended to tell it on the stand. Roman got angry and stomped out of the room, slamming the door. Craft then ordered Rocky to leave the courthouse and wait in his car in the parking garage for further instructions. Rocky was left waiting in the car all day and then received a call from the main case agent (Brant Rose) ordering him to come to MBI offices immediately.

The above stated is what Rocky told me when I visited him at his Cape Canaveral condo the same day of my acquittal. Another state witness that was my friend (now deceased) stated the same, minus the actual conversations that took place in the private room, the same day. Suzanne Redfern really cared about Rocky and was concerned for him, so watching Roman stomp out of the room and then Craft yelling at Rocky as they both exited and Rocky heading for the elevator was noteworthy to her.

Did Roman stomp out of the room because Rocky stated that he would be testifying truthfully or because it was a surprise to him that Rocky had ever lied in his depositions? We will never know. Roman was not involved in any part of the case and was only at the trial to assist Craft, as far as I am aware.


Back to Paul Bergrin's prosecutors

The prosecution team in Paul Bergrin's trial is complicit in presenting the false testimony of Oscar Cordova and Vicente Esteves. I have no choice except to conclude that not one of them has any conscience at all and each is truly the evil that they claim to fight. For the record, those names are:

Steven Sanders (AUSA)

Joseph Minish (AUSA)

John Gay (AUSA)

Paul Fishman (US Attorney)

So while I did take notice that Paul Bergrin excused the agents and the prosecution team in his questioning of witnesses this past week for their clear complicity in the false testimony, I do not excuse any one of them. Even if, and that is a big IF, the witnesses each concocted these lies they're telling on the stand all by themselves, prosecutors have a responsibility to the people.

The prosecutor is an important part of the justice system and to truly represent the interests of the people, is ultimately responsible for the presentation of falsities in witness testimony. A prosecutor is the last stop between what the witnesses tell the agents and the agents claim to have verified - he presents the testimony as truthful to the jury.

No one could convince me that any person named on the included list above is so stupid as to actually believe, let alone have verified, most of the testimony by this parade of criminal informants receiving get out of jail free cards in exchange for false statements to a jury in trial.

There is no excuse available to agents and certainly not to prosecutors. They are all complicit.

Article referenced:

Bergrin devised plan to kill witnesses, former client testifies


UPDATE on 17 August @545am:

Yes, this is the John Craft that prosecuted me:

John Craft Investigated for Racist Remarks

 

 

UPDATED ON 14 OCTOBER 2021 - For whatever reason, I misspelled Vicente Esteves throughout this post. It is now corrected. I believe that it was misspelled in the now disappeared news article and in court documents.

 

 

Entire Case Rests on Credibility of Oscar the Informant

Oscar Cordova, informant extraordinaire, testified today and prosecutors played numerous hardly audible tapes as an extra. From what I heard, none of the statements on these tapes are in any way clear and jurors are dependent on a transcript provided by prosecutors.

After what I have already seen in this trial, I couldn't trust prosecutors to be honest in the interpretation or transcription of these tapes. Jurors were provided headsets so that they might attempt to hear sentences on their own. We the people are not going to hear any actual tapes and while many accept quotes from prosecutors and newspaper reporters, I can't because of everything else I have viewed, experienced, and heard in this case.

The entire case comes down to a former Latin Kings gang member's testimony and some tapes that are simply not audible. I believe that prosecutors managed to quote one potentially damaging sentence that references this informant being instructed by Paul Bergrin to wear a ski mask. That statement was made on Paul's birthday while he was celebrating and I believe it to be a joke. Face it - no one instructs a Latin Kings gang member on what to wear or how to accomplish a murder if being serious in any way.

So let's look at Oscar Cordova the person for a minute. Why did Oscar claim to contact the DEA? According to NorthJersey. com, Oscar uses this reasoning in his testimony:

"I told them I sell drugs and I am a gang member, but I don't kill people," he said.

Recordings played at trial suggest Bergrin discussed killing witnesses with gang member

Oscar the informant, drug trafficker, and gang member actually claims to have such an attack of conscience that he called the DEA because someone wanted to kill someone. Think about that for a minute. Now read that NorthJersey.com article again. It's clear to me that Oscar is lying on the stand. He was wearing a wire (had already contacted DEA) when he asks Paul:

"What do you suggest I do? Kill him?"

Well according to Oscar's conscience attack, killing had already been discussed and that was his entire reasoning for calling the DEA. Supposedly the only response from Paul was "yeah". But I thought that the idea of killing the witness had already been discussed, so Oscar's two questions would be seriously out of order.

I'd place a bet that Oscar the drug trafficker was jammed by the DEA and set-up this entire fiasco to save himself. He did not contact the DEA because he's a nice teddy-bear guy that just trafficks in nice drugs and joined the gang to go bowling!

So is the response "yeah" incriminating? Consider that what we are not hearing probably went something like this: Yeah, you stupid f***ing a**hole piece of sh**!

Relevant and similar issues from my own RICO case

When an informant has pursued a person on a repeated basis for 6 entire months, it's really easy to snap and start playing with the person, without actually incriminating yourself. The word "yeah" is not in any way incriminating. I have this experience from my decade in the escort business in Orlando. I used to play with those agents like they'd never admit and it was all word games.

Eventually I really snapped after listening to agents threaten an escort that I accidentally sent to a hotel call that turned out to be agents. Her cellphone dialed my line from her purse and I heard it all for 20 minutes as they screamed and threatened her. I admit to cursing and carrying on like a maniac the next time I received a call from her and I knew she was in their offices and the call was being recorded. I was not cursing at her - she knew this clearly and stated as much to the jury - I was cursing at the agents that harassed and pursued me for years at that point.

That recording was the agents' prize at my trial and actually what they used to arrest me. Really it said nothing that could be considered incriminating to me at all, but it was obnoxious, so they used it for all it was worth. That recording was the only thing I had to fear in my trial. It was also the one item that jurors requested while deliberating. I think they wanted to hear it again to be sure that I really knew the escort was with agents and my angry words were directed at them and not her. Trust me - I knew, she knew, and then the jury knew.

It's hard to explain, but when a person is pursued by abusive agents and informants for a prolonged period of time, it's easy to snap and start rattling off nonsense. I compared it to kicking a dog frequently for years. Eventually that dog will turn around and viciously attack you. I was the same way, but responded with various games and reactions when agents would refuse to stop calling and trying to book an escort and I knew positively that they were agents. At first I'd play a game, then I'd get mad, then I'd start making crap up, then I'd revert back to the game and on and on... Once I played with them for 24 hours straight. It's human nature to react.

The real issue with Oscar

Did Paul in any way further any sort of idea or directive to kill any witness? Was there ever any act that followed any sort of conversation that would show Paul Bergrin was actually serious about killing anyone? Was there ever money exchanged to pay Oscar the informant / hitman for this absurd project? Did anything that Paul said to Oscar ever go beyond a BS conversation? The answer is NO!

Paul Bergrin was toying with the idiot and knew all along that he was not what he claimed to be. Oscar had actually claimed to have smuggled cellphones into ADX Florence, a US supermax prison in Colorado. There is absolutely no way on this earth that Paul Bergrin believed this informant nut actually visited anyone, let alone smuggled cellphones, into a supermax prison. To believe differently, you would have to believe that Bergrin was a truly stupid individual. But no, he was an attorney that was all too aware of what a supermax is and how things work at one, especially that supermax.

So ask yourself: Was there ever any act to further a killing of anyone on Paul Bergrin's part? Any money paid to any killer?

The entire tale of the global drug trafficking scheme is as weird as weird could be. Drugs are not sold globally and Latin Kings gang members do not call the DEA because someone might be killed. That is not how life works and this story, as with all other tales in this prosecution, does not fly anymore than pigs do.

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:

Bergrin Detention Certification (page 12 letter "a")

Witness in Nutley attorney's racketeering trial says he coaxed her to lie in prior case (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:

Cross Exam of Agent Smith

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?

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:

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

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":

Prosecutors' conduct can tip justice scales

Justice Dept. agrees to pay $140,000 to man wrongly jailed

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. 

In the Land of Make Believe

Prosecutors would like you to believe that Paul Bergrin is worse than anyone he ever defended, from gang members to drug traffickers to informants that claim to be hitmen to Jason Itzler and his group of tax evaders. The truth is that he had the simple belief that everyone deserves a fair trial. Paul Bergrin was one of the best attorneys in the US, and prosecutors anywhere, but especially Newark, are happy he is no longer in criminal defense.

Finding an attorney to fight for you if you are a defendant is no easy task. We live in an era of plea deal resolutions. The system has long been broken and broke and there is no room for trials. Prosecutors expect to try less than 5% of cases that come across their desks. Attorneys are taught to work within the system of compromise - i.e. plea deals - and if they do not, they quickly figure out how truly time-consuming trial preparation is.

Paul Bergrin is not much different in respect to his own time and his own situation. He was offered a deal in relation to the NY Confidential fiasco that allowed him to plea to what is classified as a misdemeanor in the State of New York. He pled to one count of "conspiracy to promote prostitution," a misdemeanor, in that case.

A misdemeanor would not stop him from returning to law following acquittal in this case, though I must imagine that Paul Bergrin has had his fill of criminal defense by now. Returning to law would be almost impossible as he could never actually trust or believe in a client again. A misdemeanor won't stop anyone from doing anything and is almost without consequence.

With a massive and voluminous indictment in front of him, Paul made the choice to get rid of that ridiculous case. Pleading to a misdemeanor does not translate to being guilty of the specifics involved, but any attorney would know that. Perhaps this post is for non-attorneys that manage to find fault with Paul Bergrin because of the misdemeanor plea. Last year I argued with one such person that claimed repeatedly that Paul was a convicted felon. I actually had to look-up the specific charge in New York criminal statutes to prove my point before he would stop calling Paul a felon. Just crazy.

Shortly after my own arrest on first degree felony charges in the State of Florida, I made an offer to plead to any misdemeanor, do up to 6 months in jail, no probation, and be done with the case. I wanted to keep my house and my life. The particular misdemeanor was immaterial to me at the time. My first attorney, that is now a judge, told me that prosecutors laughed at the offer. My response was that we would be going to trial because I'd never plead to a felony. And go to trial I did, but with a new attorney.

My willingness to plead to a random misdemeanor has no relation at all to guilt or innocence. I simply wanted to move on with my life and put a voluminous case behind me. I knew it would be a messy fight. Prosecutors would not hear of it, but I bet if you found the main prosecutor and asked him today, he probably wishes he took my offer. He is currently working as an AUSA, but outside of Florida. A big holler out to John Craft...

To summarize a long story, my prosecutor retired immediately after my trial, didn't do well in the world of criminal defense (go figure), tried to return to the State of Florida's Office of the Statewide Prosecutor, but was turned down flat by then FL AG Charlie Crist in a 2-page letter. I know - I read through his file. Someone fixed him up with an AUSA position in Texas. Good riddance and sorry for the defendants in the Eastern District of Texas.

Few people make guilty pleas to any charge because they're guilty of the specific charge. That's not how the system works. It is all a trade-off, except for the few defendants, such as Paul and myself, that take it to trial. It seems that there is little understanding of this practice in the general population and I do my part to educate, when possible.

I realize that I come on strong against informants, but the truth is that I do not blame any of them in this case or any other case. None created the system they're sucked into and everyone wants to survive and have a life. There is a new movie that will be in theaters on 22 February - Snitch - and it was inspired by real events. Consider seeing it to develop a better understanding of how the system actually works and what US prosecutors and federal agents are truly capable of. You need to know.

UPDATE on 17 August @545am:

Yes, this is the John Craft that prosecuted me:

John Craft Investigated for Racist Remarks

 

Tweeting from Tahiti

On the 6th and 7th of February Natalia (Natalie McLennan) testified for the government in Paul Bergrin's trial. She testified that she did see Paul Bergrin discussing business with Jason Itzler, the owner of New York Confidential, at Itzler's business address. Much of McLennan's testimony is hearsay and I am not real clear on how prosecutors are able to use it in this trial.

Natalie McLennan basically repeats crap that she claims Jason Itzler told her and did not actually hear the discussions between Itzler and Paul Bergrin. This is the reason that I refer to most of her testimony as hearsay. Sure, she saw Paul at Itzler's business address - Paul was the guy's attorney. Beyond that, Natalie spent all of her time doing drugs or shopping when she was not out visiting clients at Itzler's direction. Don't believe me - read her book.

Prosecutors want to refer to Itzler's long ago closed business, New York Confidential, as a "brothel," but as far as I am aware, there were not sexual trysts of any sort for money on the premises. I believe that it was 100% out-call. In the New York State case against Itzler and McLennan both admitted that it was a prostitution business.

Unless there was sex for money on the premises, it will never be a "brothel". It was a prostitution business disguised as an "escort service". Unless Paul Bergrin went to calls with Natalie McLennan or she had conversations with him about her dates and what she did on those dates, there is no way for Paul to know she offered prostitution services. It is not enough to say that all escort services are prostitution services and he should have known as prosecutors claim.

My escort services were not prostitution businesses, though there were certainly some escorts offering prostitution to clients some of the time as it came out in trial. The average figure stated by escorts that actually worked for my businesses was that 40% of the time each committed prostitution on calls. None ever actually discussed it with me. They each bartered their own rates for any extra, illegal services on the occasions that it occurred and I had nothing at all to do with it. One escort that worked with me briefly back in late 1995 into early 1996, did include prostitution services, but testified truthfully that her and I never discussed it.

Itzler's services may indeed have been different, but unless sex for money was occurring on the business premises, it was not a "brothel" as prosecutors are intent on claiming here. As far as I am aware, this was a business address and a party pad and nothing more.

Natalie was his star prostitute and he booked calls for her at a rate of $2K for an hour. In my opinion, anyone that would pay such a rate for an escort is a total idiot. Rates are higher in NYC than in say, Miami, and certainly higher than Orlando; however, escorts as pretty or prettier can be found for less than half that amount in NYC. Jason Itzler may be a total clown, but he was the king of marketing; that's for sure.

The idea that I have about NY Confidential is that everyone was on drugs (mainly cocaine) including Itzler. Natalie admitted to being addicted to heroin as well. It is all certainly different than how I operated my escort services for an entire decade in Orlando. If I had reason to believe that an escort was on drugs, I stopped booking calls for her. No one needs a druggie in their residence or hotel room and I consider it a volatile situation.

Druggies and heroin addicts are liars and thieves. The only thing on their mind is getting drugs. I am an anti-drug person and always have been (weed is not a drug), and that includes the mind-numbers from big pharma. I have a hard time believing that Natalie McLennan recalls much of anything from her years of working with Jason Itzler. Sure, she saw Paul's face in the building more than once - I grant you that - but so what? Another witness to nothing whatsoever.

Additionally, Natalie is no victim, except of her own stupidity. She was not arrested in the New York Confidential case until almost 7 months after the bust went down and then only because of her interviews with newspapers and on tv bragging about being a high $dollar hooker. This idiot created a case for the State of New York.

The timing of previous events

Jason Itzler was arrested in the NY Confidential case in January of 2005. Natalie was arrested in July of 2005. Itzler served his time long ago while Natalie agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and implicated Paul Bergrin by 2007 - 2 entire years later.

No telling how many people Natalie set-up prior to 2007, and then again prior to her December 2010 sentencing in the case. What we do know for sure is that her including Paul Bergrin, Itzler's attorney, got her a much reduced charge and time served in the case. She spent 20 days in jail total over the $millions made as a hooker and laundered various ways. She should have been charged with tax evasion, and perhaps that was a part of her deal for including Paul.

While Paul Bergrin was being arrested as a result of this bimbo's claim that he was part owner of NY Confidential in May of 2009, she was busy tweeting from Tahiti. According to her Tweets, she had a relaxing 2 1/2 month vacation in Tahiti that began in early April of 2009!

This criminal claims to be clearing her conscience and doing "the right thing" by testifying, but the truth is that she is a liar that not only profited heavily from her crimes, she also scored the big $$$s by flaunting it all to media and getting a major book deal. As far as I'm concerned, she's no better than a street hooker on drugs and really is worse than Itzler.

More on Paul's plea to a single misdemeanor count in this case over the weekend. 

Summary of Recent Events

This is just a quick summary of the events in the Paul Bergrin trial yesterday and today. I will try and post a more thorough analysis late tonight and if I'm not able, then tomorrow. Really I am in the middle of cooking dinner at the moment and after that I'll be tired. Yeah I know... TMI.

Natalie McLennan (of New York Confidential fame) testified late in the day yesterday and returned to the stand today. I suspect this is a main reason that the clerk did not post the Minutes from 6 February until today, though I am not clear on why this went unreported in mainstream news by a reporter that is present in the courtroom daily. Needless to say, I smell a rat.

If I had known of specific statements by McLennan, the chances are good that I would have a lengthy response in time for her cross-examination today. There does seem to be an argument going on as to the definition of an "escort service" and a "brothel" and that is something I will address in my next post.

We must wonder if Natalie is supposed to be some sort of substitute for Jason Itzler as bringing him in from his prison in NY is unlikely to help prosecutors. Natalie did make a plea deal in her own case. Ah well, I'll refrain from further discussion until I have a better understanding of her testimony.

I posted a document titled, "Bergrin Trial Letters 7 February 2013," that is over 6MB in size and certainly worth reading. To summarize it quickly for you:

Paul Bergrin: I demand all of the exculpatory evidence that the government has hidden or has otherwise disposed of in relation to a list of witnesses and including conversations recorded in Hudson County Corrections involving Alejandro Barraza-Castro and Yolanda Jauregui in relation to a big cocaine deal they were attempting.

Government Prosecutors: FU. You will never see the exculpatory evidence that you are demanding and we will justify anything we do as we always do. Additionally, you will need to subpoena the recordings from Hudson County Corrections as we have no interest in any because they do not further our agenda, and good luck with that. Furthermore, we never gave any of our witnesses polygraph examinations because we already know they're all a bunch of no-good liars, career criminals, and criminal informants.


On that note, I must return to cooking dinner.


EDIT 8 February 2013 @1:10am EST:

I have been reading about this major storm expected in the Northeastern US, including New Jersey, and must imagine that there will be no court today. According to the news this looks like a bad one and people are advised to stay at home. *sigh* I miss weather like that, believe it or not. It was 80+ degrees here today on Florida's Space Coast and no change is expected in the near future.

I lived in the Lake Mohawk / Sparta area for some time after my acquittal back in 2003. I never intended to see Florida again; however, my son was born and raised in a tropical climate and hated it there - Winter of 2003 was a cold time, freezing temperatures, a blizzard etc...  I was not all that fond of Sparta and preferred Hackensack, where my friend had lived previously.

Driving in snow conditions was never an issue for me as I learned to drive in Germany, where they do not salt the roads because of potential damage. I learned to drive on black ice, literally. Still, it can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. I wish all readers and supporters of Paul Bergrin a safe long weekend. Charge your phones and devices, just in case, and stay safe.

Drug Traffickers Facing Life Never Lie

Richard Pozo testified for the government today and admitted that he was facing life in prison when he opted to assist prosecutors in Texas and New Jersey. His sentence for his $150million per year drug business bust? Time served. This guy walks free today and trust me - that is unheard of. Pozo had to set-up many big drug traffickers in both states for the feds on top of the lies about Paul Bergrin.

This is the 404(b) evidence that was kept out of the first trial and is referred to as "the Pozo plot". A quote on NorthJersey.com has Pozo stating:

"If we know where he is, we can take him out and all of our headaches will go away," Pozo quoted Bergrin as saying.

Cocaine trafficker testifies Bergrin advised him to 'take out' government witness

A discussion of the so-called Pozo plot took place on 8 November 2011 and begins on page 4 of the transcript:

US v Bergrin November 8 2011 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

Judge William Martini did not allow this testimony in the last trial and explains clearly why on pages 4 through 15 of the transcript. This is a main reason that angry prosecutors had Judge Martini removed from this case.

This is a major drug trafficker that made $20K-$30K a week for years and faced life in prison until he chose to cooperate with the government. The alleged conversation with Paul Bergrin, who represented him for a short time as his attorney is not documented in any way, shape, or form and was NOT MENTIONED to feds in Austin, Texas during the course of Pozo's cooperation there. ONLY when Pozo was brought to New Jersey 6 months later to speak with prosecutors did this alleged conversation with Paul Bergrin come to light.

This slimeball was obviously instructed to claim he had this conversation with Paul. Otherwise, why would he neglect to mention it to feds in Austin? Because feds in Austin were not seeking false testimony about conversations that never happened.

Why on earth would Paul Bergrin care enough about this idiot to make such an absurd suggestion? How did it benefit Paul? Of course there was no benefit to Paul Bergrin whatsoever.

Richard Pozo really faced life in federal prison. He helps feds and gets time served! I have a friend that was a drug trafficker from South Texas - he was related to me (ex's family) and he is serving 22 years in club fed for less than Pozo ever did as a drug trafficker.

Pozo should make you angry. The fact that the NJ prosecutors are actually using his undocumented and wild testimony against Paul Bergrin, the attorney that represented him for a mere 8 months, should disgust you.

Discrediting Anthony Young

The alleged killer of Kemo Deshawn McCray spent the day on the stand testifying once again. Anthony Young is not that good at maintenance rehearsal, a method of learning through repetition. Every time he tells the story it has some changes from the last time because that is what happens with elaborate, detailed lies.

During the last trial he was working on his GED, so perhaps his ability to memorize a script is better this round. However, prosecutors must make the facts fit with testimony from other alleged witnesses, so expect the testimony to evolve. We can only imagine the number of hours Young must be coached.

In Paul Bergrin's first trial, Anythony Young testified on 27 October 2011. His testimony continued the following day, 28 October. Let's look at the transcripts. On 27 October, Young's testimony begins on page 103:

US v Bergrin October 27 2011 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

The government has Anthony Young recounting some of his many crimes in past and many convictions. This man is 38 or 39 now and has spent half of his life in prison. Truly sad and I could actually feel sorry for him if not for his decision to lie to help the government put an innocent man in prison for life, and of course the fact that he is a violent criminal.

On page 140, Young begins to describe Paul Bergrin driving to 17th Street in a Mercedes and on page 141 he's claiming that Paul got out and shook everyone's hand in the gang as they stood on a street corner. This guy actually wants you to believe that Paul got out of his Mercedes and told an entire group of people on a Newark street corner at night that Kemo had to die. Paul Bergrin, successful attorney that has represented the famous, is on a street corner telling a group of gang members that were mostly unknown to him to kill someone that was also unknown to him. AYFKM? Who in the hell would believe that story?

Anthony Young ends that part of the story with a statement that he wanted to shoot Kemo for the $15K because he needed it to go to an All-State game two months later and wanted sky box seats, though he already had $50K-$60K stashed for the purpose at home. If this entire story were true, why would anyone make a deal with this killer without a conscience? That is a question the prosecution will have to answer.

Predictably, Anthony Young admitted to false statements and testimony in past, but claimed that this time it was all the truth. He lied in testimony at William Baskerville's trial and admits that. Has Baskerville had the benefit of a retrial since the star witness admits to lying on the stand for federal prosecutors?

And don't forget that Kemo's stepfather saw a shooter with dreadlocks and Anthony Young was bald at the time. I must wonder if that has evolved into Young claiming he wore a wig and forgot to mention it when he testified previously. It is a serious issue because the stepfather was the only witness, so no doubt that prosecutors had to fix it somehow this round.

Wait until the jury hears from Young's former fiance Rasheeda. It all comes out that this story was Young's calculated plan to get into WITSEC. Young rambles on and on about one story after another with the prosecutor asking scores of leading questions. So much irrelevant crap it's ridiculous. I wonder if Judge Cavanaugh stopped prosecutors for this? I heard that he stopped Paul on cross-examination today.

On 28 October 2011, on page 60, Paul begins his cross-examination of Anthony Young and it contnues on 2 November 2011, after the weekend, and finally concludes on 3 November 2011:

US v Bergrin October 28 2011 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

US v Bergrin November 2 2011 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

US v Bergrin November 3 2011 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

Today Paul was cross-examining Young all day. If you read through the transcripts, you'll understand the many inconsistencies in Young's testimony that Paul Bergrin exposed in the first trial and we can imagine that there are more this round. Discrediting Anthony Young is not too complicated for anyone that actually tried because he lies frequently in his mission to knock away most years of his sentence with 5K1 letters in exchange for his false testimony.

The injustice Paul Bergrin suffers at the hands of these career criminals and rogue prosecutors is outrageous and sickening. 

A Tale of Jailhouse Snitches

This past week two jailhouse snitches testified for the government in Paul Bergrin's trial. Richard Hosten was a crack dealer turned informant that received a sentence of time served (45 months) for his testimony in the William Baskerville case. Eric Dock is a career criminal turned jailhouse informant that other prosecutors refused to work with. Dock is that level of bad and other than his connection with AUSA John Gay, has nothing to do with any of these cases.

The Richard Hosten testimony in Paul Bergrin's first trial was on 26 October 2011, and begins on page 63 of the transcript. You will read that Hosten sold crack to Kemo Deshawn McCray on a regular basis. In fact, Hosten was well-aware that Kemo was the informant in the case against Hakeem Curry before he shared a cell with William Baskerville in Hudson County.

Richard Hosten had serious reasons to worry about Kemo turning informant. He was the one to discover it when Kemo called him from an FBI agent's cellphone. That phone belonged to Agent Michael Brokos. Hosten locked-in the number and knew that Kemo was the informant.

Paul established clearly that it was Hosten that knew Kemo was the informant before being arrested and planted in a Hudson County cell with Baskerville in cross-examination, which begins on page 83 and ends on page 93:

US v Bergrin 26 October 2011

We must wonder if it was Richard Hosten that gave Kemo's name to William Baskerville. He certainly had the most to lose. And here he is testifying against Paul Bergrin with an absurd claim that Baskerville learned Kemo's name after a legal visit with Paul. Do you see how Hosten and AUSA Gay managed to twist that entire story?

With Hosten having Kemo's name first as a result of the telephone call, can anyone actually believe he did not share the information with anyone? Most likely half of Newark knew that Kemo was an informant after he locked-in that number. Why would anyone believe that Hosten kept the information to himself?

Hosten identifies Eric Dock on page 77 of that transcript. Somehow they both ended-up in a cell in Hudson County with William Baskerville. Coincidence? I seriously doubt it as true coincidence is rare. I do not think that Paul Bergrin and the court has the full picture of the relationship between Eric Dock and AUSA John Gay. In my opinion, this discovery has been buried.

So who is Eric Dock?

Dock testified on 7 November 2011 in Paul Bergrin's first trial. His testimony begins on page 105 in the transcript. Read it in its entirety to understand Dock's career criminal resume and the level of calculation of a jailhouse snitch:

US v Bergrin 7 November 2011

Cross-examination begins on page 127. Prior to the Baskerville case, Dock tried to work with prosecutors on previous occasions - a robbery/murder case and a weapons case and neither worked out. He was turned down as a cooperating witness because he has a list of charges relating to false testimony and lies to law enforcement in sworn statements.

Eric Dock was facing 22 years on narcotics charges at the time he claims to have written the letter to AUSA Gay about Baskerville. He is described as a "career criminal" by prosecutors in other cases. Paul has him recount a long list of convictions, including "obstruction of justice" and several for "providing false information to law enforcement officers". He was a fugitive from California at the time of arrest in NJ.

Dock was transferred to a cell in Hudson County from Passaic County and met Baskerville there. He kept a logbook of his conversations with Baskerville! He seems to squirm on the stand when Paul questions him in depth about this logbook.

Paul establishes that Dock was way too familiar with the informant system in state and federal cases and catches him in lies on pages 153-158. Either he lied to a federal grand jury previously, or he was lying in his current testimony. Maybe this sorry sack of excrement just lies all the time. Remember - other AUSAs passed on working with this nasty snitch, but not John Gay.

I'd like to know specifically what Eric Dock is being paid for his testimony in this case. 

The Judge has Removed his Mask

It is not as if we are unaware of where Judge Cavanaugh collects his paycheck, but most of us believed that a federal judge is supposed to at least pretend to be impartial. I have never heard of a judge placing a time limit on defense questioning of government witnesses and referring to defense questions as irrelevant throughout the first couple of weeks of trial. It's all relevant to reveal contradictions in testimony, but apparently not in Judge Dennis Cavanaugh's courtroom.

I gave Judge Cavanaugh the full benefit of doubt, as I do with anyone until they reveal their true motives and biases. Judge William Martini was removed from this case because of his impartial rulings. When the government's case is voluminous, yet has no substance, they absolutely need a judge that will favor anything prosecutors say or do, no matter how outlandish, and clearly Cavanaugh is their man and Martini did not fit the bill.

Paul Bergrin should be able to question a witness for several days if that's what it takes to defend himself on a lengthy list of charges that could each result in a life sentence. Judge Cavanaugh will have none of that defense nonsense! He has revealed a clear bias in favor of his pals at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark. We must wonder if they golf together or had lunch prior to the start of this trial.

So rulings that favor prosecutors are considered impartial, but rulings that favor the defense are viewed as biased? Do they teach this stuff in law school? I opted to pass on law school because I knew they'd manage to get rid of me in short time and no one wants to spend years in school and a boatload of money only to lose everything they worked for. Judges like Cavanaugh reinforce all that I have believed since 2002.

Most federal district judges at least maintain a pretense of impartiality, but what of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals? How would the panel that ordered Judge Martini's recusal from this case for alleged bias judge Cavanaugh's behavior yesterday and the previous days in this trial? Is it all one big government production with everyone v. the defendant? Why call it a trial when it is much closer to a theater production with a planned outcome?

Peter J. Sampson is present in the courtroom so you do not have to be:

Bergrin seeks to discredit FBI account of murder and racketeering allegations

The title of the above linked article reminds me... I wonder if Paul had the opportunity to ask agent Shawn Brokos (AKA Brokus) how many other informants have been murdered that worked with her Newark office over the years. One thing that is for sure - Kemo was not alone and I believe the latest informant murdered was Hykine "Hak" Johnson in November of 2012, but more on that over the weekend.

I will guess that Judge Cavanaugh either never watched Perry Mason or didn't appreciate his character. Well, I will definitely have to revert back to my point system in this week's summary. Kangaroo court is now in session and the one remaining mask in the room has been removed.


EDIT on 2 February 2013 @645pm:

Since this post went up yesterday, someone commented to me that the judge almost seems like he is afraid of prosecutors in this case. I have a rough time accepting any level of fear, no matter how mild, in relation to Judge Cavanaugh, though you should make no mistake - these prosecutors (mainly a reference to AUSA Gay) and these agents (mainly a reference to Shawn Brokos (AKA Brokus) - are indeed dangerous.

Really I am not sure what to make of the statement, however, it came from someone with nothing to gain or lose that is mostly neutral in this case. Is it possible that federal prosecutors have exerted their authority and intimidated the judge? I do not know and I would like to hear additional thoughts on the topic from anyone that has watched this case and trial play-out.

At any rate, there is no reason for someone in Judge Cavanaugh's position to have any level of fear whatsoever of these overzealous government workers. He is near or at the age of retirement and if there was any sort of intimidation tactics, the best response is to tell all of them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine. However, we are all aware of what they did to Judge William Martini when intimidation did not work.

Food for though, indeed.