Smiling Faces Sometimes

Friday, April 12, 2013

Integrity of Investigation

First I would like to pose the question: Could we even call this an investigation?

This post requires reading of one document and short parts of a transcript for better understanding. Volume 7 of the trial transcripts beginning on page 1386 at line 22 refers to a letter filed by the government on January 29, 2013:

BERGRIN 7 01_30_13 (link removed - contact me privately for a copy)

You are hopefully aware that the lead agent in the pursuit of Paul Bergrin is FBI SA Shawn Brokos, also known as Shawn Manson and Shawn Brockus and Shawn Brocos in various documents. SA Brokus interviewed anyone that she could find and everyone on the government's witness list in this case. SA Brokos is the one that gave SA Michael Smith the information that was certified in this indictment and detention request. The other agent took her at her word and did no further investigation as is a common practice at the FBI.

If you would like to refresh your memory on the absurd allegations certified by SA Michael Smith in the government's request for detention in this case, read:

If you need to refresh your memory in reference to the cross-examination of SA Michael Smith, read:

Cross Exam of Agent Smith (begins on page 15 with special attention to pages 23-26, 29, 31-32, 44-47, 55-58, )

So now you are aware of the allegations made by SA Shawn Brokos via SA Michael Smith that resulted in Paul Bergrin being held without bail in this case as a so-called flight risk.

Now I ask you...

1. Were any overseas (notably in Japan or the Dominican Republic or really anywhere for that matter) assets that belonged to Paul Bergrin ever identified in this case? Hell no.

Now see page 75 of this cross-examination lines 4-11.

Now I ask you...

2. Have any passports in other names ever been identified or located by anyone involved in this case? The one passport that Paul Bergrin had was in his own name and in the possession of the US government. So where are these other 4 passports that he was accused of holding by SA Brokos? They DO NOT exist!

Now take a look at the testimony of Johnny Davis in Volume 7, beginning on page 1401. The part relevant to this next question begins on page 1424 line 2 through page 1449, the end of the government's direct examination. Mr. Davis describes the man that he saw tucking a gun in his waistband immediately after his stepson Kemo Deshawn McCray fell to the ground on page 1425 lines 23-25 and again on page 1431 lines2-4 and yet again on page 1432 lines 5-6.

Now I ask you...

3. Did Johnny Davis, the only actual witness to his son's murder, describe a light-skinned and bald Anthony Young? Hell no - he described someone dark-skinned and with shoulder-length dreadlocks!

Now look at Paul Bergrin's cross-examination of Johnny Davis that begin on page 1450. On pages 1450-1452, Bergrin makes it clear that both SA Brokos and prosecutors met with Mr. Davis and they were all clear on the description that he gave of the shooter of his stepson Kemo. Mr. Davis again describes Kemo's killer beginning on page 1466 line 10.

Read the cross examination in its entirety and you will know that the one witness to Kemo's murder was treated like a criminal by detectives involved in this case prior to the feds taking it over. Once SA Brokos entered the case, as Kemo was her informant, she went with detectives from Newark P.D. to Mr. Davis's home and treated him like he was a criminal. He describes the scene as the detectives looking around and searching his home, while Brokos spoke to his daughter on pages 1471-1472.

On page 1477 of Volume 7, Mr. Davis again makes his description of Kemo's shooter clear as a sunny day. He never pretended to be able to identify a photo of the shooter as he did not see his facial features, but was positive that the shooter was a heavy-set, dark-skinned, man with shoulder-length dreadlocks. Anthony Young was light-skinned and bald at the time of the shooting.

This is by far not the only evidence submitted by the defense in this case that the Anthony Young story was entirely false, but it is enough to make my point at the moment. When I get to defense witness testimony, the rest of the evidence will be discussed.

Now I ask you...

4. Could we actually call this an investigation?

5. Does what you've read here give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about SA Brokos, her investigative skills, and her integrity?

Enough said for now. While I have no clue about her integrity in her personal life or in her other investigations, she has totally failed in this major prosecution. She lost me way back in the detention certification. So why is it that the prosecutors in this trial hold her in such high regard? That is a question that you will be asking yourself before the last post on this blog is posted.


Aziz Bashir said...

Yes i have read the detention certification and the false allegations the government made, but NEVER not once seen any proven documents another well planned tactic by the so called protectors of law something they did through out this trial. And Anthony young PLEASE his testimony should of been thrown out, lied at about 3or 4 propher session,lied to the agents those jurors even though they didn't give a rat's ass,lied to mr bergrin on the stand over and over again and the judge allowed it.

Aziz Bashir said...

And dam how many propher session are you allowed????

Aziz Bashir said...

And dam how many propher session are you allowed????

Vicky Gallas said...


Good to see you're around. I worried. I always worry about anyone that publicly supports Paul, though more so prior to trial than now.

I think that to admit that a man with dreadlocks shot Kemo and not the bald Anthony Young would have held some level of liability for Brokos, especially the way that she played Kemo and his family, mainly his mother. She made Kemo believe that he could spend a long time in prison over that stupid shotgun in the house, resulting in him choosing to be an informant. That was all lies though. Then she played his mother. Brokos is a sorry POS (piece of shit, in case you do not know the term). She then followed all of that up by failing to protect the informant that helped her take-down her targets. She's definitely a sorry POS. I don't give a crap what her 302s say - she is also a liar. I read her testimony - Volume 8, I believe.

Yes, that detention certification was all engineered. Now they ignore it as if it never existed. Paul should never have been held without a bond. From beginning to end, agents and prosecutors have engineered this production.

And make no mistake - not one of them gives a rat's ass who killed Kemo or that he is dead. Even the judge treated Johnny Davis like a third class citizen.

Most agents do not abuse informants as Brokos did. She should not be an agent - someone should send her home to her children permanently.

Aziz Bashir said...

Thanks for the concern and that's common practice for agent's in Newark. And my apology for any misprint, but my point i believe everyone should know law to a certain degree mainly kemo, he did do some prison stints and should've knew they were bluffing him. And do understand these ppl had a agenda to meet.

Vicky Gallas said...

Is it common practice for agents in Newark or is it mainly Shawn Brokos? I say that with the understanding that there could be a few more like her in Newark, but that most do not make a practice of dropping by an informant's home, getting a mother or sister involved, and using the informant for bait. She did use Kemo as bait, you know, when she placed William Baskerville and Richard Hosten in the same holding cell area. Hosten knew that Kemo was an informant when Kemo dialed him from a cellphone and he dialed it back later to hear the message that it was Michael Brokos's phone. Are they a husband / wife team?

Brokos exposed her own informant with that cellphone mixup. Is she dumb as dirt or was it done purposely? In my opinion it was done purposely and Kemo was the bait.

Yes, you are correct - Kemo should have known they were bluffing him. Perhaps the drugs clouded his mind or maybe he just wanted out of the entire scene so much that he didn't care. She (Brokos) sounds like she is good at the bluff game though - a real twisted witch that has no concern for the lives of anyone she pursues.

In the Orlando area FBI and DEA agents are not like this, at least not to this extent, and do not pursue family members or try to involve themselves in the lives of their informants, and use them as bait. However, the agency that I dealt with from 1994-? has agents like Brokos. Today their agenda is more related to drugs (more the pharmacy stuff and doctors involved than anything else). They send strippers and hookers they bust with pills to set-up doctors.

The main case agent in my case was just like Brokos - a real POS. More than a year before my arrest he dropped by my mother's and rang the bell until she answered the door. He came with another agent and talked so loudly in the hallway that she invited him in only so the neighbors didn't hear. He tried to intimidate her, but she just listened to him. He ended it by giving her his card and telling her that he was going to make sure her daughter spent 30 years in prison and that I was an organized crime kingpin. She did not tell me about this visit because she knew how I'd react. I found out only when he (agent Brant Rose) called me to threaten me several months later. After threatening me, he says how nice it was to meet my mother. I freaked out (WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU MET MY MOTHER YOU POS???). He sounded really puzzled and then hung-up. The POS thought I knew. I then got it out of my mother - every word the sack of crap said and how they intimidated her.

Of course I attempted to make a complaint, but with the MBI you always hit the voicemail, so the message was me cursing and screaming on their voicemail. lol

So yes, I have dealt with scum like Brokos over an extended period of time. I know exactly what they do. By the time of my arrest, I no longer spoke to anyone anyway. While awaiting trial, I spoke only to 2 close friends - one was threatened and forced to be a state witness, but we would compare notes - she was Dusty in my Memoirs book. My two co-defendants got married halfway into the case before trial, but they were not in love, had no reason to get married - it was 100% a game played by agent Rose and by then they were both his informants. In the end, she (Beth) sold his (Rocky) condo in Cape Canaveral as soon as he was sentenced and taken to prison.

Yes, in this case Brokos had an agenda alright. I think that a great part of her agenda in putting together this false case was covering her own ass after Kemo was killed.

Caree Black said...

Can you still be a witness after lieing at a (proffer) session? Its me vicky computer acting up (aziz).

Vicky Gallas said...

Oh absolutely - that is a main problem. They do not care how many crimes or what sort of crimes their informants commit. Consider Sammy Gravano. Consider Oscar in this case - he committed perjury on the stand and no telling how many times in proffers. They only brought Oscar back to admit to his perjury because the defense knew for fact that he lied about calling in the threat against himself.

Vicky Gallas said...

I will add to that last statement Aziz...

Consider every criminal informant witness in this case. Each lied and changed the story repeatedly and most were still selling drugs so it didn't even make sense that Brokos refused to use Kemo as an informant just because he told a few lies. It also doesn't make much sense that Kemo confessed to Brokos that he was dealing drugs again - I think she is a liar on that - as after all is said and done, what was Kemo doing the day he was killed? Working with his stepfather, Johnny Davis. And at that point people were looking for him and knew he was a snitch, so how was he going to sell any drugs???

Brokos played Kemo like a fiddle and then used him as bait in her other pursuits

Vicky Gallas said...


Perhaps Kemo did tell Brokos he was selling drugs again because otherwise she would have kept on using him. Using him and others is what Brokos did again and again with no concern for anyone's safety.

In Florida there was a law passed (in 2008 or 2009) to hold agents accountable for the safety of informants, but there's no such federal law.

The same week that Kemo was murdered, Derrick Berrian (another Newark informant) was murdered. Same type of bullets were used in BOTH murders.

The bullets used in Kemo's murder were Winchester Luger 9 mm. The bullets used in the Berrian murder, the day before Kemo's, were the same. Guess what kind of bullets were seized with Lattimore's arrest where Curry and Lachoy Walker were filmed on videotape surveillance? Winchester 9 mm Luger.

There have been other lawsuits for negligence by a LEO to an informant. Why would they let an agent who has an axe to grind, blame to place, and who needs a scapegoat undertake an investigation against Paul Bergrin when she had a very serious reason to be biased? A lawsuit is the best case scenario for Brokos. A charge of criminal negligence is the worst case scenario.

One serious connecting factor in all of these cases is AUSA John Gay. The DEA was doing separate investigations. Three days after the Kemo murder, the DEA made a number of arrests including Lachoy walker and Lattimore. There is a notation in the reports about a statement being given by Lachoy Walker, who testified in Paul's case. The notation says AUSA Gay was present.

Walker said the day after the Kemo murder Curry gave him a gun from the murder of an informant that was Curry said was just in the papers because he couldn't let him testify. They then stopped by Lattimore's place to drop something off and pick something up. Can't tell from the narrative. It is clear though, from the tape summary, that Curry was giving Walker the gun used in a homicide.

There is so much of this story that most people are unaware of. I'm far from finished posting about Kemo's murder.

Mentioning Brokos - have you ever seen this video and article? Someone sent me a link when it was aired almost a year ago:

Caree Black said...

Wow very enlightened information I must say and very accurate, will this help Mr bergrin appeal ?

Vicky Gallas said...

I doubt that much of anything on this blog would help Bergrin with his appeal. Appeals are based on legal points raised during the trial. While there certainly were many legal issues and I do not feel that he had a fair trial, I also do not believe that Judge Cavanaugh will do much of anything for him. Beyond that it will be on to the Court of Appeals.

This blog is all about the investigation and case, the trial and verdicts, facts, theories, arousing outrage over injustice, and correcting misinformation that is in mainstream news. Did it help? Yes, it brought some supporters for Paul Bergrin, but I have found that unless someone personally experiences injustice, they rarely care to even explore the topic. Too many in the US just read the crap in mainstream news and buy it hook, line, and sinker. I mean, if New York Magazine says it, then it must be correct, right?

Caree Black said...

Just watch the link you Posted about agent brokos and I remember the Daniel pearl kidnapping, no one deserves that however I didn't know she negotiated that hostage taking. Also didn't know about the threat on her life, and must say heavy credentials. Do think this influence those jurors ?I'm sure these well educated jurors must have seen or read about this.

Vicky Gallas said...


1. Daniel Pearl was beheaded.

2. I was not aware that there were any actual hostage negotiations.

3. I do not believe there is a valid or real threat on her life.

4. She has a B.S. degree - I think it's in finance or some crap like that. Her credentials do not seem so "heavy" to me.

5. If you read her testimony, she plays to the jury and acts somewhat stupid on Bergrin's cross-examination. She's a skilled bluff and plays the hand that best fits the situation. I think her nicey-nice act influenced the jury. She's an actress.

6. What makes you think the jurors were "well educated"? Perhaps a few are, but certainly not all.

Aziz Bashir said...

I say that do to the fact that mr paul bergrin did pick his own jury of his own peers and im guessing that he picked smart and intelligent group however when it's a case of this magnitude anyone can be (PLACED). I do have a open mind mrs gallas and would want to believe that he mr bergrin was able to do exactly that. But we all seen or read what took place it was just food for thought.

Vicky Gallas said...


I do not really think anyone was placed on the jury Aziz. I think it was multiple issues. Let's see if I can cover a few here...

1. The negative publicity from the NY Magazine article that Hershorn said he read back in 2009. Him and the rest of them, no doubt. They had their minds made-up before the trial started.

2. Not a single juror with street smarts or they would have known the difference between a real defender like Bergrin and a corporate lawyer. Yeah, he looked a bit rough, but he didn't thrive in the corporate environment and dealt with real people that had real problems. The jurors were all clueless in respect to criminal informants and how they operate.

3. The judge put him under a lot of pressure and the stress showed. He had to constantly fear he would be cutoff or it was taking to long for the judge's schedule.

4. They sent someone to occupy his thoughts and time and he did not completely have it together for trial. He also revealed his strategy to the person. If this can be proven, there will be criminal charges, in my opinion. Time will tell. So far only whispers in email about it, but no one is taking this person to task, yet.

Food for thought is always good.

Aziz Bashir said...

I truly understand point four and criminal charges should be brought on that person. But this whole post 100% accurate.

Vicky Gallas said...


I doubt that the person sent on this mission would be charged. But to interfere with the defense would be a criminal matter and the person on said mission will eventually squeal like a pig and someone should be charged. It is not legal.

I wish I could say more on the matter, but I'm not positive - it *seems* that way for multiple reasons that are all solid that myself and a couple of others have questioned for some time now (prior to trial and certainly more so after trial). In other words, I'm sure from a personal viewpoint.

I can usually read an informant - it's why I still exist in the free world.

Vicky Gallas said...

I have other comments to add to this, but my comments are too long to post here, so please do read a blog post that will be posted Easter weekend 2014. That blog post expounds on the last comments I made herein.