I have an issue with statements made to me today by someone working with the defense on this case. To be clear, these sentiments are not Paul Bergrin's and as he is where I stated in my last post, I have no way to ask his thoughts on this issue.
Suddenly I am told that I should be keeping everything secret. According to this party, releasing the transcripts of the first trial allowed the government's criminal informants to obtain copies and may have damaged Paul. I absolutely disagree with this statement and positively know that the criminal informants the government presented at trial were coached, could have easily received copies of the transcripts from the AUSAs, but more than likely received copies from the agents that handled each. They all rehearsed their testimony anyway - that is a fact.
I was also told that these criminal informants have allies and stating Paul Bergrin's location on this blog could be a safety issue. He was sent to the Essex County jail by vindictive AUSAs and he shows in the system, so it sure as hell is not a secret. Beyond that, nasty criminal informants are only allied with the government workers (AUSAs and agents) anyway. I doubt that any one of them has any friends at all.
Publishing the first trial transcripts and the documents from this case was necessary to counter some of the total BS and lies that I have read elsewhere. Some idiot that runs a blog titled abovethelaw.com spreads misinformation and lies on behalf of prosecutors and other newspapers and a magazine have done the same. Even the ABA articles were a total fail. They frame the story exactly how the government wants it framed. I do not. You get the real picture here, whether you want it or not.
The statements made to me today are similar to government statements in relation to the Wikileaks document releases. I am a publisher and a blogger. Any documents published here are available to anyone with a PACER account. The transcripts are available to anyone that walks into the courthouse to read on a terminal or copies can be ordered from the court reporter - from both the first trial and this recent trial.
I am merely exposing the truth and the facts that are also available to every newspaper, magazine, or other publisher if they wanted to publish truthful articles. I intend to keep on doing what I have been doing. Exposing government lies by publishing documents is my First Amendment right. The world should know the truth about this entire fiasco.
Beyond that, the transcripts from this latest trial are not in any way damaging to Paul Bergrin; however, they certainly help to reveal a failed government scheme just as the transcripts from the first trial did.
UPDATE on 1 August 2013: All transcripts have been removed. If you would like a copy of a specific witness's testimony, please contact me privately.
2 comments:
The idea that your having posted transcripts from the first trial was somehow harmful to Paul is absurd. As you correctly pointed out, all of the information is available on PACER. As far as it having helped the government witnesses, that is absolutely laughable. Those witnesses were carefully prepped and transcripts from the earlier trial must be assumed to have been part of the material used to choreograph their performance.
The logical conclusion to these calls for secrecy is that but for Vicky Gallas having posted the transcripts, they never would have been available to the government witnesses. Does anyone really believe that
Yeah - my thoughts as well. It really makes no sense coming from the party that said it. Sounds more like government rhetoric to me. ???
Post a Comment